Comparative Law Systems

**Moonshine** · 09-22-2003 02:48 AM

Comparative Law Systems Essay

Canadian tourists have often committed crimes in foreign countries, without knowledge of the possible repercussions. It looks as though most Canadians frolic about in any country they please, apparently thinking its laws don't apply to them. But in truth, it is the country's choice how it will deal with the presumed lawbreaker, whether it is a huge fine, public flogging, or even death. The countries I will be comparing to Canadian law are as follows: Singapore, Peru and Saudi Arabia.

Singapore is said to be, 'Disneyland with a death penalty'. This paradox suits the country extremely well because the streets may be spotless and safe, but the laws are restrictive and oppressive. It is a place where the people value security more than personal rights. Such little things like selling gum, jaywalking and smoking in public places are strictly prohibited and overbearingly enforced. Caning also known as flogging, is a favoured form of punishment, mandatory for robbers, rapists, extortionists, illegal immigrants and vandals. An example of such a crude punishment would be in the case of eighteen-year-old Michael Faye, an American who decided to vandalize some cars and tear down several traffic signs. He was sentenced to four months in jail, a hefty $2,215 US fine, and to be lashed six times by cane. When this news reached the United States, it shocked, angered and outraged many citizens. President Clinton tried to intervene, but Singapore's cabinet would hear nothing of it. After being greatly pressured by the US, and the possibility of bad relations in the future, the sentence was remitted to just four lashings, which would scar him for life. After the sentence was carried out, it left uneasy feelings with President Clinton, who felt corporal punishment was far too harsh for anyone, especially a first offender. Singaporeans also felt this was unfair; they were upset at their government for showing 'weakness' and changing the sentence.

Although Singapore is known for its very strict laws, in majority, the people do benefit. Eighty percent of people own their own homes, which makes Singapore the largest land developer in the city-nation. To reduce smog, drivers must have a license to drive in the business district. Drivers are caught by sensors if they are speeding, running red lights or making illegal turns; if a motorist is found without a daily pass, then they will receive a ticket in the mail. At any rate, the laws in Singapore are based off of the 'majority benefiting over the minority', which appears to work pretty well in lowering crime rates, even though the penalties are quite harsh.

Many tourists are tempted to make some fast cash on their way home to America. It seems easy, just tape some cocaine to your body, swallow a pouch or two and you'll make it home thousands of dollars richer. Unfortunately, that dream is far from true. Peruvian police are ready at the airports, waiting for the unknowing American drug-smuggler. When the 'mules' are caught, they're sent to prison, awaiting their court date. Although the jails do not have as much physical abuse as other countries do, the poor living conditions make up for it well enough. The prisons boast cardboard box beds and disease infested water. Prisoners live without food, medical care or any other comforts; these all must be purchased by the condemned's family. Recently, a new prison block was made for foreign prisoners, because their government did not want them placed in general population. Ann Signer learned first hand the awful treatment toward criminals in Peru. She had taped seven 0.5 kilos of cocaine to her body, believing she wouldn't get caught, but she did. During an examination before her trial, she had undergone more than a check up. She claimed a male nurse sedated her, then raped her. It seems the punishments for smuggling cocaine are not worth the chance of getting caught. In Saudi Arabia, the laws seem far more harsh then those of Peru. A person can be accused, convicted, and punished for crimes he/she did not commit. There is a court proceeding, but the accused might not even be represented. The law enforcers can chain the accused upright for days, kicking and punching them until there is a confession. Another form of torture is hanging the accused upside down on a metal bar, beating the soles of their feet with a bamboo cane. William Sampson had experienced each one of these horrible things, and forced to confess to several crimes he did not commit. He was sentenced to jail for several years, then to be beheaded. He seemed to go insane, counting the days of his imprisonment. Thinking he had nothing left to lose, he defied the interrogators, prison authorities and Canadian government because they weren't representing him properly. He was punished accordingly: his towel, clothes and soap were taken, in the hopes he would continue to confess. Eventually, he was freed, but he will never be the man he once was. It is hard to understand foreign laws, when they seem so cruel and in most Americanized countries' eyes, unjust and it isn't hard to imagine that there will never be a happy medium of punishments approved by every country.

Canadian Law is enormously different then other country's law because it considers prisoners as people with human rights. The purpose of jail isn't only for punishment, but also recuperation. The convicted need not worry of capital punishment or beatings. They can be counseled, and given all the mental help needed to re-enter society. Warm meals, beds, toilets and baths are provided. Entertainment such as television, computers, art supplies, exercise and games are supplied, so the criminals don't suffer insanity or depression. It is often asked, 'is Canada's legal system too lenient?' Most say yes. Although the government feels that if the prisoner's rights are preserved, they have a better chance of leaving the jails and living a prosperous, happy, law-abiding life.

To help reduce the deaths and long terms of imprisonment of Canadian's in foreign countries, the Canadian government has put more money toward Consular Affairs. This has helped many Canadian globetrotters in distress. The Consular responds to things as small as a lost passport, to cases involving a Canadian's life or death. As Lillian Campbell put it, "we're really just an extension of the travel industry," except the travel agencies only prerogative is, "to put a butt on the seat of an airplane. We'd like to put an informed butt on the seat of an airplane." With the Consular in action, hopes are heightened that Canadians will recognize the penalties they will face, if a crime is committed in a foreign country. In closing, are Canada's lenient laws strengthening Canada as a whole, or incredibly weakening it? Even though statistics prove Singapore (and other countries like it) has a lower crime rate, it is still not considered a Utopia in the Western eye.

This is my Essay for law. What do you think? Helpful comments/criticism welcome!

**lazyhops** · 09-24-2003 07:13 PM

Very very good. Very informative. I'm no law student so correct me if I'm wrong, but the Canadian system of law seems to be very similar to the British one. Although, the British one is probably overly lenient which gets in the way of justice.