One Justice System for Humanity

Published in

The Ends of Globalization

6 min readFeb 3, 2022

In 1982 a poor Black 22-year-old man in Louisiana, Archie Williams, was accused of raping and stabbing a White woman in her home. Despite insufficient evidence against him as well as multiple individuals testifying that Williams was at home at the time of the crime, the state of Louisiana sentenced him to life in prison with no possibility of parole. Thankfully after spending 37 years behind bars for a crime he never committed, new DNA technology freed Williams (Innocence Project).

In 2014 a Black 46-year-old mother, Debra Harrel, was arrested in South Carolina for leaving her nine-year-old daughter at a public park while she worked at a nearby McDonalds. The park was a seven minute walk from the family’s home and a six minute walk from the fast food restaurant where Harrel worked. Her daughter was familiar with the walking routes and was able to return home when she wanted to. On top of that, the daughter was equipped with a cell phone with family contacts. Accused of abandoning her child, Harrel was ultimately charged with unlawful neglect of a child, spent 17 days in jail, and temporarily lost custody of her daughter (The Washington Post).

In 2016 a White former Stanford student-athlete, Brock Turner, was sentenced to six months in Santa Clara County jail for raping an unconscious and intoxicated woman behind a campus dumpster. He was released early after a mere three months, serving only half of his sentence (NPR).

Inherently it is impossible and irresponsible to directly compare each case due to the wide array of circumstances. However, it is evident that there is far too much inconsistency within the United States judiciary, let alone the entire globe.

The justice system concerns humanitarian ethics and thus should be handled by mankind as a whole. The word “humanitarian” in itself, applies to all human beings; humanitarian morals should not vary depending on one’s location in the world. Hence, all people should be treated equally by courts regardless of their gender, race, economic situation, education level, location, etc. Although culture may vastly differ across national borders, federal judiciary branches ought to amalgamate into an international court system and establish global legislation concerning violent crime. Justice and humanitarianism should be applied consistently to all world citizens.

Some may object to global legal standards, asserting that cultural divergences pose an obstacle to total international legislation.

Of course, countries have different cultural norms; as a result, currently there is great variance among their laws: sharing a public kiss in Dubai is taboo, chewing gum in Singapore is a big no-no, handling a salmon suspiciously in the United Kingdom could land you a hefty fine, and God forbid you lip sync in Turkmenistan (Far & Wide). Due to the miniscule impacts of such misdemeanors on social wellbeing — in comparison to those of violent felonies — it is frankly unnecessary for international legislation to cover the entire spectrum of crime.

To put it another way, there are ethical principles that nearly all people (or at least I’d hope) would agree on. For instance, unless in the case of self-defense, maliciously harming or murdering another human being is felonious and punishable. Such violent cases are where enforcing global legislation is necessary. When an individual infringes upon universal laws, they must be punished correspondingly. This means that two people who commit the same heinous crime, even if worlds apart, receive similar consequences. In essence, certain morals transcend borders and thus, issues revolving around them need to be addressed on a global scale.

For these reasons, I propose a global approach to criminal law solely regarding violent offenses such as robbery, sexual assault, manslaughter, homicide, etc. I suggest national judicial leaders congregate into an international court and declare worldwide legislation to handle violent cases. This legislation would delineate what constitutes a violent crime, who can be a perpetrator (ex. children? mentally ill people?), and the treatment of the accused throughout due process and onwards.

Naturally there would be much contention when attempting to merge the over 100 justice systems that currently exist in the world; nations would vouch for their own justice systems and simultaneously critique others. To aid this transition, an analytical and objective approach to decide the basic framework of international law would be to examine current recidivism rates in each country. In other words, an offender’s likelihood of reoffending (the same or a different crime) after their release is an empirical metric to measure the quality of a judicial system.

A 2019 study tracked the lives of 10,004 federal offenders who were released in 2005 (United States Sentencing Commission). It found that 37.9% of violent offenders had relapsed into criminal behavior within two years of release, ranking the United States with one of the top recidivism rates on the planet.

In comparison, Norway has one of the smallest recidivism rates among violent offenders of merely 23% (Correctional Service of Norway Staff Academy). This study similarly investigated the lives of 12,927 Norwegian violent offenders who were released in 2005, and tracked the number who engaged in crime again within two years of release.

Assessing the raw numbers, Norway’s justice system (23% recidivism) is clearly superior to that of the United States (37.9% recidivism). Thus, it makes sense to base the international system off of current Norwegian principles, which have maintained consistent and relatively high effectiveness.

The modern Norwegian justice system, in contrast to that of the United States and many other countries, emphasizes rehabilitation rather than punishment: their prison cells resemble college dorm rooms and are prohibited from including any metal bars; inmates have constant access to bathrooms, refrigerators, televisions, and common living areas; penitentiaries provide educators who teach the inmates academic and vocational skills; and since 1971, the country has abolished capital punishment and life imprisonment, placing a 21-year cap on prison sentences (The Borgen Project). Restorative justice is the basic premise of the Norwegian legal system: there is a strong belief that prisoners are able to change and help society after their release. This unprecedented focus on rehabilitation has sharply cut down crime in the country and should be implemented internationally.

However, how can we prove Norway’s relatively low crime rate is attributed to changes in its penal system? Perhaps there is less access to weapons in Norway so it is more challenging to commit a crime. Or maybe Norway has a more culturally homogenous population and therefore there are less violent crimes.

An examination into Norway’s history illustrates the correlation between judicial amendments and decline in national crime rates. Prior to the 1990s, when Norway’s prison system was heavily focused on security and punishment akin to the current American system, the overall recidivism rate was approximately 70% (BBC). But after much reformation in accordance with restorative principles, criminal activity plummeted to less than a third of its previous rate (Correctional Service of Norway Staff Academy).

Admittedly, there is a wide multitude of other factors such as social compliance and resource availability that would determine if Norway’s justice system could be implemented successfully worldwide.

Nonetheless based on its recidivism statistics and historical improvement trend, a strategic start would be to mirror the global groundwork based on Norway’s current structure. Restorative justice would be the backbone of the international system: open-style cells, academic and vocational education, a blanket ban on the death penalty, and a time cap on sentences would be enforced worldwide. Moving forward, judicial representatives from each country shall collaborate to continuously reform and improve the system.

By extension, the due process and potential incarceration of the accused would be carried out within their own nations. It is both costly and unnecessary to transport individuals around the world for this sole purpose. To be clear, although each country is responsible for conducting the judicial process within its own borders, the decisions of the court would abide by policy set by the international judiciary.

It is imperative to reform criminal law because the variance in justice systems undermines its fundamental purpose. Rather than delivering an impartial justice process for all, current systems are unpredictable as irrelevant factors like race and class severely affect a person’s sentence. Constructing an international justice system, built upon the principles of objectivity, consistency, and restorative justice, is a fitting logical solution to this current humanitarian crisis.

Sources

One Justice System for Humanity

Written by Jackie Pham