Comparative Study Of Pakistani Criminal Law With Uk And Us Frameworks
Comparative Study: Pakistani Criminal Law vis-à-vis UK and US Frameworks
I. Overview of Criminal Law Systems
| Aspect | Pakistan | United Kingdom | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal System | Common law based, influenced by British law + Islamic law (Hudood Ordinances) | Common law system | Common law system with federal and state statutes |
| Primary Criminal Law Code | Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) 1860 (originally Indian Penal Code 1860) with amendments | Offences against the Person Act, Theft Act, etc. | Federal Criminal Code + State laws |
| Influence | British colonial legacy + Islamic Sharia law elements | Developed through statutes and judicial precedents | Combination of statutes, case law, and constitutional law |
| Punishment | Includes Islamic Hudood punishments alongside secular law | Punishments range from fines to imprisonment, no capital punishment in UK (except for exceptional cases) | Capital punishment legal in some states; diverse sentencing regimes |
| Trial System | Adversarial, based on common law | Adversarial, common law | Adversarial, common law with constitutional safeguards |
II. Key Comparative Themes
| Theme | Pakistan | UK | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capital Punishment | Retained (including Hudood crimes like Qisas, Diyat) | Abolished in practice | Retained in many states federally |
| Blasphemy Laws | Very strict, with severe penalties | No blasphemy laws | Protected under free speech |
| Sexual Offences | Hudood Ordinances regulate zina, rape; evidentiary challenges | Sexual Offences Act 2003 comprehensive | Rape laws vary by state, with federal guidelines |
| Drug Offences | Strict, with mandatory death penalty for trafficking | Strict, but no death penalty | Varies; some states have harsh penalties |
| Juvenile Justice | Separate laws but implementation weak | Strong protections and juvenile courts | Separate juvenile justice system |
| Evidence Rules | Influenced by Qanun-e-Shahadat (Islamic evidence rules) and common law | Common law and statutory rules | Federal Rules of Evidence |
III. Case Law Comparative Analysis
1. Pakistan: Mukhtaran Mai Case (2002)
Facts: Mukhtaran Mai was gang-raped on orders of a tribal council as punishment.
Legal Issues: Application of Hudood Ordinances, evidentiary rules for sexual offences.
Judgment: Initial convictions overturned due to lack of evidence; eventual acquittal led to debates about victim protection.
Significance: Exposed gaps in enforcement of women’s rights under Pakistani criminal law and evidentiary challenges under Hudood Ordinances.
Comparative Note: Contrast with UK and US where victim protection laws and forensic standards have evolved to aid prosecution.
2. United Kingdom: R v. Brown (1993)
Facts: Case involving consensual sadomasochistic activities among adults.
Legal Issue: Whether consent is a defense to charges of assault causing bodily harm.
Judgment: House of Lords held that consent was not a defense in this context.
Significance: Defined limits on personal autonomy in bodily harm cases.
Comparative Note: Pakistani criminal law has strict limits on bodily harm but is influenced by Islamic precepts; US jurisdictions may vary with some states more permissive.
3. United States: Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Facts: Ernesto Miranda was arrested and confessed without being informed of his rights.
Legal Issue: Protection against self-incrimination and right to counsel.
Judgment: US Supreme Court held that suspects must be informed of their rights (Miranda rights).
Significance: Established procedural safeguards in criminal justice.
Comparative Note: Pakistan lacks formal Miranda-like rights; police interrogations often criticized; UK has some procedural safeguards but less formalized than US.
4. Pakistan: Zainab Ansari Case (2018)
Facts: Murder and sexual assault of a minor girl, Zainab Ansari, caused national outrage.
Legal Issues: Implementation of child protection laws, death penalty, and swift justice demands.
Judgment: Conviction and death sentence of accused based on forensic and testimonial evidence.
Significance: Demonstrated Pakistani legal system’s struggle between public demand for justice and procedural delays.
Comparative Note: UK and US have separate juvenile justice systems and child protection agencies that are more institutionalized.
5. United Kingdom: R v. Jogee (2016)
Facts: Case re-examining joint enterprise liability in criminal law.
Legal Issue: Whether foresight of a crime by an accomplice equals intent.
Judgment: Supreme Court ruled foresight is not intent; required proof of intention.
Significance: Shifted burden in accomplice liability, emphasizing mens rea.
Comparative Note: Pakistani law recognizes joint liability but often follows strict interpretations; US law varies by state.
6. United States: Furman v. Georgia (1972)
Facts: Challenge to death penalty’s arbitrary application.
Legal Issue: Whether death penalty violated 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment).
Judgment: US Supreme Court temporarily halted death penalty; led to reforms.
Significance: Triggered review of capital punishment practices.
Comparative Note: Pakistan retains death penalty, including for Hudood crimes, with less judicial restraint.
IV. Summary Table of Comparative Features
| Feature | Pakistan | UK | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capital Punishment | Retained, used in serious and Hudood cases | Abolished practically | Retained in many states |
| Rights of Accused | Limited procedural safeguards | Strong protections (e.g., right to silence) | Miranda rights, plea bargaining |
| Sexual Offences | Hudood Ordinances, evidentiary challenges | Detailed statutory framework | Varies by state, with federal guidelines |
| Juvenile Justice | Separate laws but enforcement weak | Strong juvenile justice system | Separate juvenile courts and protections |
| Police Powers | Broad powers, allegations of abuse | Regulated, oversight mechanisms | Regulated by constitution and courts |
V. Conclusion
Pakistani criminal law remains heavily influenced by British colonial legacy but integrates Islamic legal principles, especially in personal law and Hudood Ordinances.
UK criminal law reflects a modern, rights-based, and statute-driven system balancing state power and individual liberties.
US criminal law provides strong constitutional protections, complex federal and state layers, and active judicial review.
Each system faces unique challenges in protecting rights, ensuring justice, and evolving with societal needs.
RELATED Blog
0 comments