The society has grown with the continuous increase in population that has prompted people to unite in particular geographical jurisdictions (countries). Therefore, this has called for various laws within each and every territory so that people can stay under guidance. To maintain peace, these jurisdictions have also implemented the laws that ensure that the human rights are respected. This paper aims at analyzing the strategies put by the American government in dealing with civil order control comparing to those of China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and England.
According to Dammer & Albanese (2011), civil order control is the attempt by the government authorities to maintain order within their jurisdiction. In order to deal with the problems related to the civil order control, the U.S government is committed to enforcing and regulating the laws that ensure that human rights are respected in all aspects. This way, the government aims at preventing any person from being denied his or her human right, which can cause lack of order. For instance, the police are expected to respect other people’s rights. They must thus avoid causing any further disorder when dealing with any issue.
The U.S government has also established the Civil Disturbance Plan that deals with civil disorders such as war outbreaks and crimes. In addition, the government has created the Institute of Peace that examines the activities of the police when trying to maintain peace and order so that they do not cause any further disorder by infringing people’s rights.On the other hand, the citizens also have a role to participate in maintaining order. They are mandated to call the civil order agencies for assistance in case of a crime or a disaster such as public riots. The law enforcing agencies include the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Marshal, the Central intelligence Agency (CIA) and so on (Roberson & Das, 2008).
Additionally, Dammer & Albanese (2011) observe that the government has created the Civilian Reserve Corps that are in readiness to assist the police restore order in cases of emergency public disorder. Also, there is the use of the commercially provided police who assist in controlling crowd and riot. These are provided by the commercial private firms, which are contracted by the government. On the other hand, the government also maintains its sovereignty and hence can decide on any course of action in cases of disorder within the territory.
The government has given the police the necessary powers for them to protect the public and the property. Examples of such powers include the power to request removal of face covering and that to impose curfew in cases of suspicion of criminal activities. The government has also prohibited violent public demonstrations, which have limited the possibilities of civil disorders in case of its occurrence. Lastly, the government also has respect to local legislations, which are aimed at maintaining the public order within the various local jurisdictions (Dammer & Albanese, 2011).
In comparison, both the U.S and Japan’s governments are committed towards ensuring that the citizens’ rights are upheld so that there is no infringement of any individual’s right. This is by making and enforcing laws that help maintain the civil order. However, the two differ in that the police, who are the law enforcers in the U.S, are under the government and are monitored by the American Institute of Peace agency. However, in Japan, the police are under independent judiciary and are monitored by the press (Roberson & Das, 2008).
On the other hand, England and the U.S governments have various different agencies that deal with the maintenance of public order. In the U.S, they include the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S Intelligence Community and so on. While in England there are the Terrorism Prevention and Investigations agency. On the other hand, these two governments differ in that in America, anyone who causes disorder can only be punished after trial by the courts of law. While the Terrorism Prevention and Investigations in England can punish anyone who causes civil disorder without trial (Dammer & Albanese, 2011).
In both the U.S and Saudi Arabia, the police are given the mandate to maintain law and order throughout the country. But on the other hand, they differ in that in Saudi Arabia part of the police force (Religious Police) are in charge of ensuring that the citizens also adhere to the religious code of conduct, while in the U.S, the police are only supposed to enforce the civil law (Dammer & Albanese, 2011).
Finally, according to Dammer & Albanese (2011) both China and the U.S governments have employed the use of law enforcing agencies in order to assist the police in maintaining law and order. But they differ in that, in America, the law enforcing agencies work independently, unlike in China where they are regulated by the Ministry of Public Security (MPS).
In order to maintain peace within a country, there is a need to enforce the civil laws by both the police and other government agencies so as to increase the security measures.