Crime and Justice International Magazine - Sam Houston State University

The second meaning is connected with corruption, a more dangerous phenomenon because it is a question of the corruptibility of judges. As a result, court decisions favor the party that was able to pay out the necessary sum. For the designation of “justice” of this kind, the expression “justice made to order” is sometimes used.

It is also necessary to consider the corruptibility of detectives, procurators, and staff of other law enforcement bodies, as a result of which decisions are made on criminal cases (at the pre-trial stage particularly) based on the influence of an influential person or corporation.

We will consider here shadow justice in the third meaning, when the functions of judicial authorities are discharged by criminal groups and their leaders. In this case we speak sometimes about “black justice” or about “criminal justice.”

Shadow justice in the last meaning is of considerable interest for those countries where a significant number of natives of Russia and other republics of the former USSR live. Among such countries we may mention Great Britain, Germany, Austria, France, Switzerland, Spain, the United States, and others. In order for law enforcement of those countries to better understand the challenge that stands before them, it is useful to become familiar with the belief system such people come from, which local traditions they adhere to, which rules of behavior they choose, how they resolve internal and external conflicts, and how to cooperate with them or fight against them.

The architects of this modernization effort took as axiomatic Lord Irvine, the Lord Chancellor’s statement that “the Government was elected on a radical agenda to modernize this country. All institutions and services are liable to scrutiny, and those that are out of date, inefficient, or unaccountable to the people will not survive unchanged…. Change will be made whenever this will strengthen the social fabric, and promote a fairer, more decent, and more inclusive society” (Windelsham, 2001). As part to this development, instead of focusing on the effective administration of traditional services such as the police, courts, or prisons, the orientation changed to concentrating on measurable outcomes sought by the criminal justice system, e.g., crime reduction. As Lord Windelsham observes, for the Home Office (the branch of Britain’s government responsible for crime and crime control) three key objectives were identified and promoted. They were to: 1) reduce crime and fear of crime; 2) dispense justice fairly; and 3) promote confidence in the rule of law (Windelsham, 2001). It was further posited that these outcomes could not be delivered by the Home Office acting alone. Instead, they require that the central government, local governments, non governmental organizations, voluntary associations, and private enterprises work together in the form of partnerships.