The Architecture Of Punitive Sovereignty: A Comparative Analysis Of Criminal Court Powers In India, USA, UK, France And Russia
Vijayaraghavan K, LLM, School of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Administration, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, School of Excellence, Taramani, Chennai 600113, Tamil Nadu, India
ABSTRACT
The article explores the criminal court architecture, limit imposed under statutory, and philosophies powers governing them across global legal systems namely India, United States, United Kingdom, France, and Russia. An in-depth analysis was carried out by comparing the common law tradition based on adversarial mechanisms against the truth-seeking frameworks of civil law based on inquisitorial models, by relaying on judicial power distributed, restricted, and its exercise. The paper explores sentencing thresholds, constitutional review mandates, pre-trial judicial interventions, and the varying operational realities of judicial independence to demonstrate how national history shapes the administration of criminal justice. While the mechanisms of sentencing, pre-trial detention, and judicial inquiry vary substantially, criminal courts universally act as the primary operational frontier of state power. The comparative analysis demonstrates that the architecture of criminal court powers is never merely technical, rather it serves as a direct mirror of a nation's democratic resilience, administrative centralization and commitment to the rule of law.
Keywords: Punitive Sovereignty, Comparative Criminal Law, Judicial Discretion, Sentencing Powers, Separation of Powers, Constitutional Jurisprudence.
