Traditionally, comparatism is about comparing what is not evidently comparable, by dissecting the conditions that allow comparability. Conversely, comparatism is also about questioning and probing what is too quickly compared. Comparatism involves making comparisons with an awareness of hidden hypotheses and a commitment to bring these hypotheses forth, in pursuit of science and falsifiability. The scope of this article is to illustrate one specific instance of such circumstance and develop the due diligence of comparatism. The focus is to compare conviction rates across selected countries, something that has not been done before. The aim is whether it is meaningful and valid to compare conviction rates across different countries by placing them side by side in a table and whether these rates are actually measuring the same thing in each country, so that they can be fairly compared. The methodological approach is comparative and quali-quantitative. This article examines qualitative and quantitative differences in procedure and in practice, making use of simple statistics. The paradigm is regulatory rather than radical; it focuses on possible reform which does not question the foundations of the judicial organization and the roles of judges and prosecutors. This is a first attempt at establishing comparability of such different data across different legal systems. The finding is that it is ‘not unreasonable’ to make such comparison. Though the causes of the differences are complex, different planning policies appear to be a plausible causal element within such complexity. The explanation is as follows: parallel planning policy diffuses responsibility among the stakeholders and over time; so, the trial becomes an extended investigation, leading to low conviction rates.
Paolo D’Anselmi (Thu,) studied this question.