WORLD FACTBOOK OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS

INTRODUCTION 

Graeme Newman, Adam C. Bouloukos, and Debra Cohen


     The goal of this Factbook is to provide
up-to-date information about the criminal justice
systems of the world.  Information is provided
with a level of detail sufficient to convey a
reasonably accurate snapshot of the criminal
justice system for the interested professional who
is, perhaps, travelling to the country for the
first time, or who needs a quick overview of the
country's criminal justice system for research or
planning purposes.  In this regard, it should be
used in conjunction with other Factbooks, such as
the CIA Factbook, which provide basic economic,
political, military, and cultural information
about the countries. 
 
     Descriptions have been collected for a number
of countries around the world and will be added to
the ones presented here as they become available. 
While each description varies in the level of
detail provided, all conform to a basic template
that was developed in order to organize both the
collection and the presentation of the
information. Development of this template was a
particularly difficult undertaking, because it
raised some basic questions about criminal
justice.  Namely, what is a criminal justice
system, and once answered, what are the essential
elements of the system for which information
should be collected from every country?  Intrinsic
to this problem, of course, was the challenge to
develop a template that would apply "equally" to
every country, regardless of how its criminal
justice system was organized or structured.   

What Is A Criminal Justice System?

     What is Criminal Justice?  The expression
"criminal justice," was born of the mid-20th
century in the United States.  The first school of
criminal justice was established at the State
University of New York at Albany in the 1960s, and
the curriculum of that school has been used as a
blueprint for many schools and departments in
Universities and training organizations in many
parts of the world.  The curriculum of these
schools is usually divided into several main
subject areas: Administration of (Criminal)
Justice; The Nature of Crime and/or Criminology;
Corrections and/or Penology; Criminal Law and
Procedure, and Research Methods and Statistics. 
While there are many variations on these themes,
and there continues to be much controversy as to
the scope of such curricula, it can be seen that
these five parts of the typical criminal justice
curriculum reflect, generally, the late 20th
century approach to the understanding of crime and
justice.  

     Prior to this century, the approach to
criminal justice was more oriented toward an
assessment of the legal aspects of crime, with the
scientific aspects of criminal justice being
mostly confined to the study of the causes of
crime, and not to the actual operations of the
criminal justice system. In the Western tradition
of criminal justice, it might be argued that
Beccaria's famous treatise, "On Crimes and
Punishments," focused almost entirely on the
administration of criminal justice, and not on
causes of crime.  In this sense he might be
thought of as the "father" of criminal justice in
the same way that Lombroso is often thought of as
the "father" of scientific criminology. 

     Many American textbooks of criminal justice
typically begin with a flow diagram of the
criminal justice system, showing the movement of
cases and/or offenders, beginning with the first
contact with the police, through the many paths of
criminal justice, to some final outcome.  Along
the way to this end, there are many different
persons including lawyers, human service workers,
government and non-government employees,
politicians and elected officials who can play a
role in the process.  In fact, the complex
diagrams of the American textbooks are themselves
highly simplistic, since they cannot possibly
portray the detail of the multi-layered systems of
criminal justice that exist throughout the United
States.  The independence of each state means that
each has its own criminal justice system, so that
there are 50 different criminal justice systems in
the United States, not including the Federal
system and the District of Columbia.  But even
this is misleading, since there are also criminal
justice agencies (including police, courts and
jails) that operate entirely, and independently,
at the local (city, town and county) level. 

     These diagrams have become more and more
complex in recent years, showing the many
different routes offenders and suspects may take
through the "system."  New "parts" tend to be
added to the system diagram as new ways of
"diverting" and/or "treating" offenders are
introduced, and as the scope of criminal justice
is broadened to encompass different types of
offenders and offenses.  This highly theoretical
but effective way of portraying criminal justice
as a well integrated system, was first introduced
in the Crime Commission report, "Challenge of
Crime in a Free Society," in 1966, which was
issued directly from the Johnson administration's
push toward the Great Society.  Prior to this
time, the various aspects of criminal justice were
seen as separate and distinct enterprises; police,
courts, and corrections were seen as largely
independent bodies (Duffee, 1990; Walker, 1992).

     What is a System?  Strictly speaking, the
criminal justice system is not a "system," in the
same way that one might consider an automobile
engine. There, every part depends on every other
part for its smooth functioning and the clear
singular purpose of powering the automobile.  The
criminal justice system does not often have a
clearly defined overall goal, and in fact, its
various parts may have conflicting goals.  For
example, the goal of the corrections department
may be to treat its prisoners according to the
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for
Treatment of Prisoners.  But the court system may
deliver to it too many offenders with long
sentences, resulting in prison overcrowding.  Nor
is it agreed upon as to what the actual goal of a
prison ought to be (e.g., rehabilitation, penance,
or custody).  As a further example, it is not
uncommon for police to view courts as being
counterproductive to their work by letting too
many offenders go free, or in treating them too
leniently.

     If the various parts of the criminal justice
system (police, courts, corrections) work as a
system, they do so only as a very loosely tied
group of subsystems within subsystems.  Their
operations are often only tenuously linked.  The
United States criminal justice system represents,
arguably, the most difficult case from the point
of view of comparative criminal justice, because
of its incredibly complex, multi-layered system. 
Those countries with a more unitary system of
government are able to portray their criminal
justice operations more completely and succinctly. 

     Because of the high degree of abstraction
necessary to portray and conceive of the U.S.
system of criminal justice as a "system",
contributors were given a template laid out
according to what was deemed the essential
"stages" or "elements" of criminal justice.  The
template stayed quite close to the traditional
American view of criminal justice as beginning
with police contact, then courts, and finally
corrections, rather similar to the "contemporary
criminal justice paradigm" as described by Walker
(1992). While this approach seems obviously biased
in favor of the common law legal system, it can be
justified, because the Factbook is a collection of
descriptions of criminal justice systems, not
legal systems.  This is an important distinction
that needs to be clarified, because the modern
criminal justice system originates not so much
from a particular legal system, but rather from
the concept and operation of the modern
nation-state.  The two--legal system and
nation-state--are closely linked.  However, it is
the nation-state that gives force and legitimacy
to the legal system, and provides the essential
operational foundations (i.e. the resources, both
human and  economic) for the criminal justice
system to operate.  This requires some elaboration
particularly in regard to previous attempts to
link criminal justice systems of the world to
specific types of legal systems or "families of
law."

Legal Systems and Criminal Justice

     Previous writings that have tried to compare
the criminal justice systems of different
countries have virtually all rooted themselves in
the identification of various types of legal
systems or rules of law (See for example, Cole et
al, 1987; Terrill, 1984;  David and Brierley,
1968).  Generally speaking, such studies claim
that there are basically three legal families in
the world: civil law, common law, and socialist
law.  First, civil law refers to the
Romano-Germanic family of law where "rules of law
are intimately linked to ideas of justice and
morality...[This family] attache[s] special
importance to enacted legislation in the form of
"codes" (David and Brierly, 1968:22). Second,
common law is historically English and is premised
on the notion that judicial decision "seeks to
provide the solution to a trial rather than to
formulate a general rule of conduct for the
future. It is, then, much less abstract than
[civil law]" (David and Brierly, 1968:24). Third,
law in the socialist society is "strictly
subordinate to the task of creating a new economic
structure... [In fact], the proclaimed ambition of
socialist jurists is to overturn society and
create the conditions for a new social order in
which the very concepts of state and law will
disappear (David and Brierly, 1968:26). There is
also some, though not much, recognition of other
systems of law: "Asian," "Islamic" and "Hindu"
(David and Brierley, 1968).  Since the people of
the world who live under these three systems
comprise roughly half the world's population, it
is difficult to avoid Beirne's charge of "legal
chauvinism" (1983) against such writers.  From the
point of view of legal systems and the idea of
law, perhaps this charge is justified. However,
from the point of view of criminal justice
systems, we do not think that it is, for reasons
that we shall make clear shortly.

     For the moment, we question the wisdom of
making too much of the division between the civil
law tradition and that of common law.  While it is
true that the common-law tradition emerged in
England after the Norman invasion in 1066,
nevertheless there are many roots of English
common law in previous European legal history. 
The Latin terminology retained in all Western law,
both civil and common, surely attests to its
origins in European culture and philosophy.

     Similarly, the attempt to separate socialist
law from the civil and common law is misguided at
best.  The fact is that Marxist theory has no room
whatsoever for the concept of law.  The emergence
of socialist law is an aberration of civil law,
not a "new" or independent body of law. Aberration
is meant simply as  a re-affirmation of the
inquisitorial aspect of the history of the civil
law family: law's appropriation by a politically
powerful autocracy to further its own interests. 
Such occurred during the Inquisition of the Middle
Ages, as well as during the Marxist era of the
20th century.  While the actual content of
socialist law may appear different, its functions
and operations remained an accentuated version of
civil law with a heavy emphasis on a control model
of criminal justice (See Packer, 1968).  It is the
latter observation of "socialist law" that
suggests a differentiating factor: the needs of
the state to establish an operational mode on top
of the legal system.  Thus, it is the demands of
the state that produce the basic structures of
criminal justice systems, not the legal system or
law per se. 

     An excellent example of this complex
relationship between legal systems and criminal
justice may be seen in the case of the United
States itself.  The United States criminal justice
system is commonly held to have its roots in
English common law.  Also noted is the incredible
diversity of criminal justice systems within the
United States.  These systems are, however, tied
together by the overarching political structure of
the United States federal system of government,
with its built in "checks and balances".  Of equal
or greater importance in binding the diverse
systems is the United States Constitution. 
Further, the Constitution is based on an even
deeper philosophical (some would say cultural)
binding force: the rule of law.  This "legal
principle provides that decisions should be made
by the application of known principles or laws
without the intervention of discretion in their
application" (Black, 1990: 1332).  This principle,
while it serves to bind different systems together
under one "goal", says nothing about the
organizational structure required in order to
implement the ideal.  It does, however, require
that there be formal systems for the
identification of crime and societal reactions to
it.  That is to say, the concept brings with it
the profoundly Western solution to crime: formal
punishment.  This "rule" therefore is as much
socio-cultural in origin as it is legal.

     Thus, the formal criminal justice model that
we have used in our template is clearly based on
this widely identified rule of law along with its
correlatives:  the official finding of guilt and
the response of punishment and/or corrective
sanctions in one form or another.  Anthropologists
of law have taught us that this concept of social
control is distinctly Western (though not only
Western). In many cultures, historically and
currently, the idea of formal law, both written or
unwritten, does not or did not exist (See, for
example, Hoebel (1954); Malinowski (1926)).  But
these observations of anthropologists are based on
studies of cultures, rather than nation-states,
and it is this fact that sets a book such as this
apart from the traditional work of the
anthropologists of law.  Furthermore, it is no
coincidence that the U.S. criminal justice system
is based on English common law.  It was, of
course, a colony of the newly emerged nation-state
of England.  Many of the countries surveyed in
this book are former colonies of Western powers
(Western defined broadly to mean those powers of
Europe that emerged in the 16th century--see
below).  But a country does not need to have been
colonized by one of the western powers in order to
have its criminal justice structure influenced by
the West.  The reason for this is that the very
concept of the nation-state, to which all
countries of the world today claim status, is a
Western concept, and a product of relatively
recent Western history.

Criminal Justice and the Nation-State.  

     The concept of the modern nation-state
emerged in Europe roughly in the 16th century, and
it was this powerful concept that drove these
nations (e.g., England, Spain, France, Portugal,
Holland) to expand and impose their national
identities on other countries.  The colonized
countries, while often more advanced in other
respects (e.g. China technologically), did not
conceive of themselves as "one nation," and so
became vulnerable to attack by a Western power,
with a unified and highly charged political
concept of its own "sovereignty."  

     It is the dominance of both the concept and
legal entity of the nation-state that has demanded
the formal structures of the criminal justice
system.  All the countries mentioned above
developed the various parts of what we call the
criminal justice system today--police, courts,
prisons--at roughly the same time that they
emerged as nation-states.  Social historians and
critics alike are clear on their identification of
this period as contiguous with the rise in complex
organizations and bureaucracies (Weber, 1978;
Foucault, 1977) in regard to many aspects of
social and economic life.  Crime and its control
were clearly a part of this massive change in the
way in which States were organized and structured. 
Thus, while the actual legal systems may form the
basis for the particular modes of decision making
in the various countries (e.g. the civil law
tradition in contrast to the common law
tradition), all modern nation-states have formal
systems of law, police forces, prisons, and court
systems, regardless of the ethnic, cultural, or
religious background of the country.  

     All nation-states, as part of their very
definition, seem to require such formal (criminal)
justice structures.  That both the concept and
legal entity of the "nation-state" are distinctly
Western, there can be no doubt.  One needs merely
to look at the basic charter of the United Nations
to see that it emerged from the basic concerns of
sovereignty of the Western powers (including the
USSR) as a result of the conflict among major
nation-states of World War II.   If the events of
the last 10 years are any indication, the push for
the establishment of new nation-states and their
demand for the United Nations recognition has
never been stronger.  The number of new states
that have emerged in just the past 5 years is
stunning.

     Thus, the World Factbook of Criminal Justice
Systems is state-based, not culture-based,
although the cultural aspects of nation-states may
strongly influence the criminal justice system. 
However, at least for the criminal justice
descriptions obtained for the Factbook, all
countries, no matter what their political or
cultural history, have police forces, all have
courts of law, and all have prisons.  This is
quite remarkable in itself, especially since the
recent emergence of new nation-states has been
based on their reaffirmation of separate cultural
and ethnic identities.  The formal attributes of
criminal justice (police, courts and corrections)
have continued to exist, sometimes in stark
relief.

     There are, of course, wide variations in the
extent to which these formal attributes of
criminal justice exert influence in the overall
social control of a particular country.  It might
be argued that, in some countries (e.g., Japan)
the formal aspects of the criminal justice system
(police, courts, corrections) play a very small
part in he overall social control of its society. 
The Factbook cannot hope to make this
determination.  It can only present the general
description of the criminal justice systems of
each country and provide some political and
historical context for the system description. 
Obviously, the comparative weight of other
social control institutions or systems--such as
education, manners, family discipline and
structure--must be determined on their own merits. 
Any comparisons of criminal justice systems across
countries would, of course, need to take such
factors into account.

The Criminal Justice Model

     The model adopted, then, is a clearly Western
model of criminal justice, one that it not far
from the American model. This is justified by the
predominance of the Western criminal justice model
at this point in world history.  It must be
emphasized that it is a Western criminal justice
system model that dominates the world, not a
Western legal system model. Should it happen that
modern nation-states begin to dismantle their
prison systems, and abolish their police
departments, then we the template would have to be
reconsidered. But there does not appear to be any
indication that such basic changes are under way. 
In fact, if anything, there is every indication
that the model presented in this book is expanding
and becoming more entrenched.  It is true that
there is a continuing search in many countries for
"alternatives" to criminal justice, but so far,
these alternatives tend to become subsumed within
the formal structures of criminal justice.  These
are embellishments to the basic model of criminal
justice, not replacements of it.  Until or unless
the historically recent concept of the nation-
state recedes, the Western model of criminal
justice will remain dominant.  And so, it is
within this model, that we have constructed our
template for the description of the criminal
justice systems.

     This approach, while it may be criticized for
its obvious Western orientation, nevertheless
carries with it an important advantage; it allows,
perhaps paradoxically, for the descriptions of
criminal justice systems in countries that do not
fall easily within the traditional "big three"
families of law (i.e., civil, common, and
socialist).  The introductory sections included
outline the political and legal structure and the
history of the respective criminal justice system
to help account for the unique aspects that may
help to bind the many parts of a given criminal
justice system together, and to show the extent to
which a criminal justice system plays a part in
the overall social control of a country.  The
section on crime definitions and statistics, in
order to provides some basis of "output" of the
criminal justice bureaucracies of the modern
nation-state.
     
     Finally, while some contributors complained
that the template assumed a legal model that did
not fit their particular country (for example, the
concept of "arrest" does not exist as a concept in
some countries), they nevertheless were able,
within the categories provided them in the
template, to express this difficulty and show how
their particular system affected decisions made
along the flow of the the criminal justice system. 
More substantially, the whole concept of a
criminal justice system as portrayed in the
template does not begin to address the many
informal, customary, and traditional justice
"systems" that exist in many countries.  An
efforst was made to make room for such systems
within the template, but it is true that the
template itself dominates the entire picture, and
focuses essentially on formal aspects of criminal
justice.  As argued above, this is because the
focus is on nation-states, not cultures.

A Note on Contributors, Sources and Selection 
of Countries

Selection of Contributors.  Contributors, as far
as possible were selected on the basis of their
status as independent scholars or researchers,
whose records of research or professional work in
criminal justice were outstanding.  While most are
or were citizens of the country that they wrote
about, some were not.  There were some who also
were officials of their governments in various
capacities. Where possible, the affiliations of
the contributors are identified.  

Sources.  Every effort has been made to list
carefully, and in detail the sources of
information.  However, there have been some
instances where the positions or identities of
sources and have been protected at the authors'
request.  These have been for reasons of
personal safety of the authors and/or sources of
information.  This is also why, in some
instances, specific positions or addresses of
individuals or sources have not been listed. 
Original language titles of articles and books
have been kept.  Not all have been translated
into English. 

Selection of Countries.   The Factbook project
began with the hope of collecting information on
all geographic areas of the world, and to a large
extent this was done.  Ultimately, however, the 
countries in this Factbook is represent a
combination of the availability of a qualified
person to write the entry and the contact and
identification of such individuals through various
networking arrangements--especially through
contacts at international meetings of criminal
justice, and through the world wide electronic
forum, the United Nations Crime and Justice
Information Network.


CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TEMPLATE

General Note: In countries with a federal or
decentralized system of justice, please try
to give a general account of the overall system,
but also provide examples from the different
localities or provinces which demonstrate
diversity, if this is a significant factor. 

SECTION I:  GENERAL OVERVIEW

1. Political System. How the different parts of
the criminal justice system are administered
according to such systems as Federal, State,
Commonwealth, Provincial, local administrations
etc. Note the number of States or Provinces.

2. Legal System. Describe the type of legal
system, if applicable, such as Adversarial,
Islamic, customary, inquisitorial, colonial,
common law, Marxist etc. If an informal justice
system plays a significant part in the justice
system, describe its extent and general mode of
operation.

3. Brief History. Narrative on the history of the
legal system, and criminal law in particular. 
Political and social context of criminal justice
system. Significant legislation that has affected
the criminal justice system.

SECTION II:  CRIME

1. Classification of crimes.
 
þOutline the general legal classification of crime
(e.g., are there basic distinctions between
serious and less serious offenses, such as
felony/misdemeanour, indictable/non-indictable
offenses, crimes/delicts etc.) List the crimes
that generally fall within each category.

þNote the age of criminal responsibility.

þDescribe drug offenses. For which drugs is it
criminal either to sell or use (specify
which)?

2. Crime Statistics   For the crimes of murder,
rape, a serious property offense, and a serious
drug offense, provide statistics reported or
recorded by the police, for the most recent year
available.  If these statistics are unavailable,
provide either number of arrests or number of
convictions for each crime. Specify which
statistic is used.  In addition:

þProvide the definitions upon which the statistics
are based and state the origin of these
definitions (i.e., are they legal definitions, or
"administrative" definitions used by the
police for recording purposes). It is recognized
that the above offense types may not specifically
exist in some countries.  Please choose the
offense type that is closest.  

þState whether attempts are included in the
statistic.

þProvide complete bibliographical information on
the sources of these definitions and statistics.

þCrime regions: Name regions (e.g. inner-city
neighborhoods, mountainous or isolated regions,
edges of big cities),  where particular types of
crime are generally higher or more typical of that
area.

SECTION III. VICTIMS

1. What particular groups (e.g. ethnic origin,
gender, age, regional), if any, are the
most victimized by crime? Are there survey data
available on victimization?  If so, briefly
describe the findings and provide bibliographical
sources.

2. Number of victims' assistance agencies and type
(e.g., rape crisis centers, compensation boards,
whether state/private administered).

3. Describe the role, if any, of the victim in
prosecution and sentencing. 

4. Describe Victims' rights legislation, if any.

SECTION IV: POLICE

By "police" we mean: "public agencies whose
principal functions are the prevention,
detection and investigation of crime and the
apprehension of alleged offenders" (The United
Nations Definition).

1. Administration. Describe or diagram the chain
of command, whence the police derives authority to
act. Comment on relation to the military
structure. Note the administrative structure: i.e.
local, state, federal etc. Describe types of
policing agencies (e.g. tax collection,
immigration etc.) and how they are administered
(e.g. local, state, federal etc.)

2. Resources. Please report the:

þAnnual expenditure on policing.

þNumber of police by ethnic origin and gender,
most recent year.

þNumber of police at different levels of
organization, if applicable. (i.e., Federal,
state, local etc.), most recent year.

3. Technology.  Please report the:  

þAvailability of police automobiles, ratio of
police to automobiles if possible.
 
þAvailability of electronic equipment (e.g.
computer aided dispatch, computer records,
radio communications, radar, etc.).

þTypes of weapons available, availability of
bullet-proof vests, etc.

4. Training and qualifications.  Describe:

þThe months or years or hours required. 

þWho conducts the training (on the job, State
police academy, college, etc.).

þQualifications for appointment as new recruit.

5. Discretion. Generally describe the process
police follow in handling suspects from
initial contact through to the prosecutorial
stage. Please provide information on the following
specifics:

þUse of force: under what conditions may police
use force and/or deadly force?  What
weapons do police carry on their persons? (e.g.
guns, baton, etc.).

þUnder what conditions/constraints may police stop
and/or apprehend a suspect?
  
þWhat proportion of arrests are made without a
warrant?  

þWhat factors are taken into account in the
officer's decision to process the suspect further
in the criminal justice system, or to take
alternative action such as "cautioning".?  Are
there departmental guidelines of rules that the
officer must follow?

þUnder what conditions/constraints may police
search or seize property?  

þWhat are the legal requirements for obtaining
confessions?

6. Accountability. How are complaints against
police behavior handled?  Are there "watchdog"
committees, judicial review etc.?

SECTION V: PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL PROCESS

1. Rights of Accused. 

þWhat are the rights of the accused in the trial
process (e.g., right to trial by jury, trial
by judicial panel, right to plead guilty to lesser
offense, etc.)?
 
þWhat assistance is provided the accused in
his/her defense (e.g., public defender
system, eligibility for assistance etc.)?

2. Procedures.

þWhat are the preparatory procedures for bringing
a suspect to trial?  e.g., judicial investigation,
grand jury, police investigation and arrest.

þWhat official conducts the prosecution of the
accused? (e.g., police, district attorney,
court appointed magistrate etc.)

þAre there alternatives to going to trial (e.g.,
negotiated settlement, dispute resolution,
"plea bargaining," medical or other kind of
supervised/unsupervised treatment)? Describe
how these alternatives may be chosen (e.g.,
discretion of prosecutor, judge, other criminal
justice officials).  

þWhat proportion of prosecuted cases actually goes
to trial?  Does this proportion vary according to
major offense types?

3. Pre-trial incarceration. 

þUnder what conditions is incarceration before or
waiting trial allowed?  

þDescribe bail procedures or their equivalent, if
applicable.

þWhat proportion of the pre-trial offenders is
incarcerated (estimates acceptable)?

SECTION VI: JUDICIAL SYSTEM

1. Administration. Describe or diagram the
heirarchy of courts from highest authority
to the lowest.

2. Judges.

þReport numbers of judges overall and according to
level of court, and provide ethnic and/or gender
breakdown if available.

þDescribe how judges are appointed, their training
and qualifications.

3. Special courts.  List and briefly describe
special courts such as juvenile, family,
ethnic, religious, cutomary etc. that deal with
criminal offenses.

4. Procedure. How are the majority of criminal
cases "resolved" (e.g., trial, summary sentence,
guilty plea, etc.)?  What proportion of cases is
settled by "guilty plea" and does this vary by
major offense category?
 
SECTION VII: PENALTIES AND SENTENCING

1. Sentencing process. Who determines the
sentence?  Is there a special sentencing
hearing?  Which persons (professional, victims,
jury, psychiatrists, social workers, relgious
persons, etc.) have input into the sentencing
process?

2. Types of penalties.  What different kinds of
penalties are typically used?  

þList the range (e.g., fines, prison, probation,
corporal punishment, house arrest,
banishment, institutional treatment facility,
public punishments, publicity, disenfranchisement,
exile etc.), and if possible the classes of crimes
to which these penalties are more commonly
attached (i.e., is rape typically punished by
prison, property crime by fines, etc.).

þIs the death penalty allowed? If so, for what
crime(s)?  Method(s) of execution? How many
executions in last 5 years?

SECTION VIII:  PRISON

Note: For countries with federal systems, please
provide information that shows the proportions of
federal compared to state prison data.

1. Description. 

þNumber of prisons and their type (e.g., maximum
security, minimum security, prison farms,
juvenile, male/female/co-ed).  

þNumber of prison beds.

þNumber of prisoners--daily average population; by
ethnic origin and gender.

þNumber of annual admissions.
1

þActual or estimated proportions of inmates
incarcerated for:

Crime Type            Annual        Daily
                      Admissions    Average

Drug crimes              %            %
Violent crimes
Property crimes          %            %
Other                    %            %

Total                  100%         100%

2. Administration. 
 
þHow are prisons administered: federal, state,
local, private etc.?

þNumber of prison guards and their types, by
gender and ethnicity if available.

þTraining required, qualifications for
appointment.

þTotal expenditure on prison system per year.

3. Conditions. 

þAre remissions possible? Time off for good
behavior, parole allowed? 

þAre inmates required to work, attend classes,
etc.?

þWhat amenities and privileges are/are not
provided (e.g., visiting policies, weekend leave,
group therapy, educational and vocational
programs, medical assistance, etc.)?

SECTION IX: EXTRADITION AND TREATIES

þCan criminals or suspects be extradited to or
from other countries? If so, please list the
countries.

þCan prisoners be exchanged or transferred to
other countries? Please list the countries.

þAre there any general conditions that govern
these agreements, or are all these agreements
specifically bilateral?

SECTION X: SOURCES

Please list ALL sources used in compling this
report.  These should include:

þPublished documents with year, publisher, place
and author.

þUnpublished documents and reports with year,
department, agency and authors, address
and phone number of agency.

þPersonal communication. State names, addresses
and phone numbers, date of contact. 


REFERENCES

Beirne, P. (1983). "Generalization and its
     discontents: The comparative study of crime".
     In I.L. Barak-Glantz & E.H. Johnson (eds.),
     Comparative criminology, Beverly Hills, CA:
     Sage.
Black, Henry Campbell (1990), Black's Law
     Dictionary, 6th Edition. St. Paul, MN: West
     Publishing Company.
Cole, George F., S. J. Frankowski, and M. G.
     Gertz, (1987) Major Criminal Justice Systems.
     Beverly Hills: Sage. 
David, R. and J. E. Brierley (1968) Major Legal
     Systems of the World Today. London: Free
     Press. 
Duffee, D., F. Hussey, and J. Kramer, (1978). 
     Criminal justice: Organization, structure,
     and analysis. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Fairchild, E. (1993), Comparative criminal justice
     systems. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Feeley, Malcolm M. (1991),  Court reform on trial:
     Why simple solutions fail.  New York:
     Basic Books.
Feeley, Malcolm M. (1973), "Two models of the
     criminal justice system".  Law and Society
     Review, 7(3): 407-425.
Foucault, M. (1977), Discipline and Punish. New
     York: Pantheon,  
Hoebel, E. Adamson (1954), The Law of Primitive
     Man. Cambridge: Harvard University
     Press.
Malinowski, Bronislaw (1926), Crime and Custom in
     Savage Society. New York: Harcourt,
     Brace and Company, Inc.
Milovanovic, Dragan (1994), The Sociology of Law,
     2nd Edition. Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston
      Publishers.
Packer, Herbert L. (1969), The Limits of Criminal
     Sanction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
     Press.
Terrill, Richard J. (1984), World Criminal Justice
     Systems.  Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing
     Company.
Von Glahn, Gerhard (1986), Law Among Nations. New
     York: Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc.
Walker, Sam (1992),  Origins of the contemporary
     criminal justice paradigm: The American Bar
     Foundation Survey, 1953-1969.  Justice
     Quarterly, 9(1): 47-76.
Weber, M. (1978), Economy and Society, Vol 1 and
     2, G. Roth and C. Wittich (eds.) Los Angeles,
     California: University of California Press. 

END OF FILE