Medha Singh, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies
Bhumika Agrawal, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies
ABSTRACT
This research paper compares the strategies related to incarceration between Japan, Norway, and India to discuss procedural frameworks and statutory provisions and the implications of influence on human rights that differ in each country's correctional practices. With key legal statutes, landmark case laws, and the philosophic underpinnings of criminal justice systems, the different models of punishment, rehabilitation, and prisoner rights will be evaluated. Japan has implemented discipline and strict order, but Norway has focused on the rehabilitative model of stressing humane treatment and reintegration. India, being a common law country, presents quite an opposite challenge-overcrowding and poorly funded prison systems amidst an effort to meet international human rights standards. A careful reading of seminal cases, such as the Hakamada Case of Japan and the Breivik case of Norway or the Sunil Batra case of India, examines how judicial review, international law, and domestic policies converge to determine incarceration practices. The study concludes with a set of recommendations for India by drawing lessons from Norway's reformist approach toward rehabilitation and Japan's discipline, while keeping in mind the cultural and systemic peculiarities. The paper further reflects on the global implications for prison reform and human rights within correctional systems at a broader scale.
Comments