Wednesday, April 9, 2008
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20080409a2.html
Lay judge law to
start May 21 next year
Kyodo News
The law establishing the lay
judge system, in which citizens will serve as de facto jurors in
trials involving serious crimes, will take effect May 21 next year,
the government announced Tuesday.
Because the system will
apply to cases for which indictments are filed on that date or later,
the first trial with lay judges will be held in late July or early
August 2009 after pretrial deliberations by prosecutors, defense
lawyers and courts, according to a senior Justice Ministry official.
21, 2004, calls for six eligible voters to work with three
professional judges at district courts to determine a defendant's
guilt and, if applicable, the sentence. The lay judges will be
involved in trials for serious crimes, including murder.
The Supreme Court and the
Japan Federation of Bar Associations had demanded that the law take
effect no sooner than mid-May 2009 so they could have as much time as
possible to make the public aware of the system.
The government said public
understanding of and interest in the system has deepened
considerably, citing a recent Supreme Court poll that shows more than
60 percent of the respondents were ready to fulfill the duty of
citizen judge, the officials said.
The government reported the
schedule to a panel of the Liberal Democratic Party and New Komeito
in the morning before officially making public the implementation
date. Compilation of a lay judge list will start this July 15, the
officials said.
"Now that a specific
enforcement date has been set, a sense of the reality (of the new
system) will grow further among the public," said Shoji Ogawa,
director general of the Supreme Court's Criminal Affairs Bureau. "We
will continue preparations on a renewed note."
Takeshi Nishimura from the
JFBA said, "We are faced with some problems, but we would like
to reform trials together with the public."
His comments came after the
Niigata Bar Association adopted a resolution in February urging a
delay in the system due to various problems.
http://whatjapanthinks.com/2006/01/22/lay-judges-no-thanks/
Lay
judges? No thanks!
By
Ken Y-N ( January 22, 2006 at
00:14) · Filed under Polls,
Society
August, Central Research Services, Inc performed a survey regarding
the introduction of lay judges
to the Japanese judicial system by questioning 1,384 adults from an
initial pool of 2,000 by means of face-to-face interviews. This is
the third time they have carried out this survey, once in 2003 and
once in 2004, so the main text will compare this time’s results
with previous results. The results were presented mainly as a textual
report rather than raw data, so that is the way I too will present
this translation.
The
system
of lay judges was
passed into law in 2004 and is due to be introduced in 2009. One
thing I always regretted when I lived back in the UK was never being
asked to serve on a jury, as being a very civic-minded sort of
person, seeing first-hand and participating in the legal process
would be quite an honour to me. A friend of mine once sat on a jury
for someone charged with nicking car radios. After the first and only
day at trial, my friend went back to his car and found, rather
ironically, that his radio had also been pinched.
The support for this new
law, however, has grown weaker, shrinking from about half the
population being behind it two years ago to now just over a third. In
addition, as can be seen from the pie chart on the right, just one in
twenty has the confidence in their own abilities to perform as a law
judge.
Note that Japan has not had
a trial by jury system since 1943.
Regarding the awareness of
the introduction of lay judges, 79% of the total sample size knew
about it, 5 percentage points up from last year. Awareness in Tokyo,
Osaka and other major cities was at 86%, up 9 points; in smaller
towns and cities it was at 78%, up from 75%; and in the villages and
countryside, 7^%, up from 71%. Three percent more men knew about it
than last year, up from 82% to 85%, whereas women stood at 74%, up
from 67%.
Broken down by ages, 68% in
their twenties, 78% in their thirties, 85% in their forties, 84% in
their fifties and 78% aged sixty or over were aware of the new
legislation. By occupation, the most aware were office workers at
85%, whereas farmers, foresters and fishermen were least aware at
70%.
Now, regarding the necessity
of this new system, merely 16% thought it was necessary and 18%
thought it was somewhat necessary. This 34% is down from 40% in 2004
and 50% in 2003. On the other side, 18% thought it was somewhat
unnecessary and 23% thought it was not necessary at all. Here, the
41% opposed similarly increased from 35% and 23% in the previous two
surveys.
Looking at the large cities,
38% thought it was necessary to some degree versus 49% and 54% the
previous two times. In smaller towns and cities, it stood at 34%,
down from 38% and 49%; and in the countryside only 27% expressed a
positive opinion, down from 35% and 46%. By sex, 39% of men but only
29% of women were in favour, down from 46% and 35% respectively in
2004, and 52% and 48% in 2003.
When asked why they
supported the lay judge legislation, 63% of the supporters said that
it would deepen citizens’ understanding and interest in trials;
40% said because judges were remote from the feelings of the man in
the street; and 35% felt that the accused would be more understanding
of a sentence that the man in the street had participated in. These
were the top three reasons chosen. On the other hand, the top three
reasons for those who thought lay judges were not necessary were
first was that the average citizen’s knowledge of judicial
matters was poor at 63%; 47% said that people would be easily
influenced by unreliable information; and 33% reckoned it is
burdensome for the man in the street to participate in trials.
Next, they asked who might
like to participate in a trial as a lay judge. A mere 6% definitely
wanted to take part and 16% thought it would be good to participate.
These figures were respectively 5% and 20% in 2004 and 8% and 22% in
2003. Broken down by sex, 27% of men expressed one of these two
positive opinions, whereas only 17% of women were keen. Looking at
the opinions by age group, 32% of people in their thirties would
participate, the highest score, whereas only 15% of those sixty and
over would take part. By employment, the self-employed and those in
management were most positive at 41%, whereas fulltime housewives
were least keen at 15%.
Finally,
people were asked if they themselves had the confidence to judge
someone. Merely one percent said they did and 4% said they had some
degree of confidence. Over three-quarters (76%) said they had no
confidence at all, and 13% had little self-confidence in their
abilities to perform. The noes were strongest in rural areas, where
95% expressed negative opinions to this question. Women were three
percentage points more negative in regards to this question, and by
age a similar 3% separated the highest and lowest ranks.
フォームの始まり
|
フォームの終わり
Related articles:
Japanese
attitudes on being a lay judge
Japan
and Engel’s Coefficient of Communication
3
Comments »
Adamu
said,
January
22, 2006 @ 23:05
Hey, serving on a jury isn’t
all it’s cracked up to be. In the US state of Connecticut, at
least, I got selected for duty and had to spend all day from 8am to
4pm waiting to get called, only allowed to watch whatever crappy
daytime TV was on and leave only for an hour for lunch. They keep the
jury people separate so the lawyers etc can’t influence them or
something. When it was finally my turn, they asked a series of
questions and eventually let me go when they apparently didn’t
pick me to decide whether someone was negligent for building a wobbly
pool deck. All in all a big waste of time and never did I feel much
like I was achieving any honor-worthy civic participation.
Japanese
attitudes on being a lay judge » 世論
What
Japan Thinks - Japanese Opinion Polls and Market Research Translated
into English said,
February
2, 2007 @ 23:27
[…]
This is another topic where I translated a survey last year. I was
always disappointed that I never got selected for jury duty when I
was back home. Q1: Do you know about the soon-to-start lay judge
system? (Sample size=1,795) […]
http://whatjapanthinks.com/2007/02/02/japanese-attitudes-on-being-a-lay-judge/
Japanese
attitudes on being a lay judge
By
Ken Y-N ( February 2, 2007 at
23:27) · Filed under Polls,
Society
Cabinet Office Japan recently published the results of a survey into
the lay
judge system to be introduced in 2009.
Over ten days in the middle of December last year they selected a
random sample of 3,000 people aged 20 years or older, of which 1,795,
or 59.8%, chose to respond to the survey. More detailed demographic
information is yet to be published.
This
is another topic where I
translated a survey last year.
I was always disappointed that I never got selected for jury duty
when I was back home.
Q1:
Do you know about the soon-to-start lay judge system? (Sample
size=1,795)
Yes (to SQ) | 80.7% |
No | 19.3% |
Q1SQ:
Regarding the lay judge system, which of the following do you know
about? (Sample size=1,449, multiple answer)
Lay judges will | 68.2% |
When performing lay | 50.7% |
You don’t | 31.5% |
If a vote is | 30.3% |
You can take the | 30.2% |
Lay judges get a | 18.4% |
Lay judges will | 15.5% |
Those over 70 years | 10.1% |
Other | 0.3% |
None of the above | 13.0% |
Q2:
Lay judges are selected by a random lottery from all citizens aged 20
years old or more. Would you want to be chosen to participate?
(Sample size=1,795)
Want to particpate | 5.6% |
Wouldn’t mind | 15.2% |
Don’t really | 44.5% |
Even though it is | 33.6% |
Don’t know | 1.2% |
Q3:
Assuming you were participating in a trial as a lay judge, what
things might you feel unsure about? Select from the list below.
(Sample size=1,795, multiple answer)
Would feel heavy | 64.5% |
Not confident I | 44.5% |
Don’t know | 42.0% |
Not confident I | 40.5% |
Physical safety | 39.1% |
Not confident I | 20.3% |
Difficulties with | 18.7% |
Difficulties with | 10.3% |
No particular | 3.7% |
Other | 0.4% |
Don’t know |
|
Juries in Japan
From
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump
to: navigation,
search
The
jury
law was first introduced to Japan in 1923 by the leadership of
the Prime Minister Kato
Tomosaburo. The
jury system was not used very often at that time. The jury law has
been suspended since 1943.
New
law
On
May
28, 2004,
Diet
of Japan enacted
the law which requires selected citizens to take part in criminal
court trials of certain severe crimes and make decisions together
with professional judges both on guilt and on the sentence. These
citizens are called “Saiban-in” (裁判員;lay
judge). Saiban-in are randomly selected out of the electoral
register. In most of the cases the judicial panel is composed of six
Saiban-in and three professional judges. In cases where there is no
substantial dispute over guilt, the panel will be composed of four
Saiban-in and one professional judge. Unlike previous law, the
defendants are not allowed to waive trial by Saiban-in. Saiban-in
system will be implemented by May
2009.
Controversy of the new law
As
with any new system, there is an apprehension by some about the new
law. Adversaries of the law assert that Japan has some tradition of
submissiveness to authority that will lead to the juries always
following the judges' opinion[citation
needed].
Just as is the case in most countries, there is a reluctance to be
selected for jury duty. Japanese polls are consistent with other
developed jury systems where 70 percent of the population has a
reluctance to serve as a juror.[1]
[eferences
^
Onishi, Norimitsu (2007-07-16).
"Japan
Learns Dreaded Task of Jury Duty".
New
York Times.
Retrieved on 2007-07-16.
Anderson
& Ambler,
http://law.anu.edu.au/anjel/documents/ZJapanR/ZJapanR21_HP07_Anderson%20Ambler.pdf
[edit]
External links
For
an English translation of the law see Anderson & Dear,
http://www.hawaii.edu/aplpj/pdfs/v6.01_Anderson.pdf#search=%22saiban-in%20translation%22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juries_in_Japan
Judging
thy neighbour: an exploration of how the lay judge system to be
implemented in 2009 will affect Japanese society
Japan,
Inc., Sept-Oct,
2007 by Peter
Harris
Mr
Murase is a section chief in a medium-sized Japanese company. He is
married and has two children. Like many Japanese workers in his
position, he is often required to stay late at the office or go out
with superiors or clients to the neglect of his familial commitments.
Until, one day, he receives a letter from the Supreme Court summoning
him to act as a lay judge. Having initially decided to refuse the
request he is encouraged by his wife and eldest daughter to seize the
opportunity and let his subordinates in the office have a chance to
get by on their own. In the process of the trial (of a man who,
having been fired, decides to burn down the apartment building in
which he lives) Mr Murase is exposed to a number of judicial and
moral dilemmas, but is also able to spend more time at home with his
family and learn to trust his inferiors to do their jobs by
themselves.
This is the story of a
public promotional DVD issued by the Supreme Court in order to try
and educate citizens about the jury (or lay judge) system that will
be implemented in Japan in 2009. Naturally, the drama in the DVD is
somewhat contrived--the man in a wheelchair who asks if he will be
able to get in and out of the courtroom, the girl who asks whether
the fact that she left school at 15 prevents her from sitting on the
jury, and Mr Murase's eldest daughter's regular use of the Supreme
Court website to check facts and gain information about the system.
However, given the nature and impact of the change that the jury
system will have on Japanese society, it is highly understandable
that the judiciary are putting a lot of effort into public education.
Councillor General at the Supreme Court, Tomonao Onizawa told J@pan
Inc that "the point of introducing the jury system into Japan is
to take away the fear of the law and break down the barriers between
the people and the judiciary." One has only to look at the
Supreme Court building, that conforms to my image of the Ministry of
Truth in Orwell's 1984, to see how Japanese citizens might feel
intimidated by the institutions of the law.
Yet it was in this austere
building that we met Judge Onizawa, who, in contrast to the
architecture, is a beaming and genial man. Judge Onizawa firmly
believes that the main point of the jury system is to bring the
citizens into greater contact with the judiciary, as this will
empower them to take greater control of their own destinies. He says
that the basic objective is to, "let each individual shine ...
let them think by themselves ... if we introduce this system people
will have contact with the judiciary, know more about the judiciary,
and their trust in the system will be greater."
He accepts that it will take
many years for the system to work effectively and for positive social
benefits to be seen but, that it is beneficial for Japan, he is
certain. Not only will it bring ordinary people into the judiciary
but it will also put the spotlight on judges and lawyers, essentially
making the system more transparent. Why then will it have taken until
2009 for Japan to have brought in the jury system?
Juries in Japan
Writing in the Wisconsin
International Law Journal, Professor Matthew Wilson of Temple
University, Japan Campus explains that although there was a jury
system established during the Taisho Democracy era in the 1920s,
"Most defendants waived their right to a jury trial because the
jury could only determine factual matters and the accused could not
appeal the jury's factual determinations."
After the war, the US
administration in Japan looked at the judicial system and decided
that the token jury system of the prewar era was so ineffective in
terms of placing justice in the hands of the citizenry that they
simply didn't feel it was worth keeping. When asked about this
decision, Professor Wilson told J@pan Inc, "It's interesting
that after the war most of the changes introduced were designed to
give power to the people, but by getting rid of the jury system,
power was actually taken away from them." Rather, they focused
on strengthening the judiciary so as to prevent it being dominated by
government. To symbolize this equality the Supreme Court building was
made with a tower on the top to ensure that it stretches to exactly
the same height as the Diet building.
However, by the early 1950s,
the window for making major sweeping changes to Japanese law and
society had closed. Then, in the 1980s there were four cases of
people who received capital punishment in which confessions were
later revoked. This provoked much public debate about Japanese
justice. In 1987, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Koichi Yaguchi,
pushed for a feasibility study of jury system implementation in
Japan. However, it was not until the economic downturn of the late
1990s that any concrete plans were made to bring in lay judges.
At the time the economy had
stagnated and the banking industry was in crisis. The cries for
deregulation and greater transparency could no longer be ignored. As
Professor Wilson explains, there was a feeling that the "system
needed to be looked at as a whole" and this job fell to the
Justice Reform Council (JRC) that was set up in July 1999 and "came
up with landmark plans--it just turned the legal system upside down."
As well as the jury system, acting on the recommendations of the JRC,
the Diet built more law schools and revised the criminal and civil
codes. They reduced the cost of filing a claim against someone and
made it easier to get access to information. The jury system was
another logical step in this wave of legal reforms. The form it will
take however, is in many ways unique.
After
much painful debate and lobbying from the bar association, the
Supreme Court and other interested parties, from May 1 2009 all
serious criminal cases will be tried in front of a panel consisting
of six lay judges and three professionals. The panel will be
responsible for deciding the guilt or innocence of the defendant as
well as sentencing. Unlike in many Western countries, all judges will
be able to ask witnesses questions. Lay judges will be able to
receive up to [yen] 10,000 compensation a day. While they are not
allowed to mention specific details of the case or talk to the media,
they are encouraged to talk to their family, friends and co-workers
about their experiences as a lay judge.
ccording to Professor
Wilson's article, "If the new jury trial system would have been
in effect between 2003 and 2005, over 3,000 criminal cases at the
district court level would have been subject to trial each year."
It is expected that once the new system is in place roughly 10,000
Japanese citizens will experience life as a lay judge in the first
year after the change.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Social compatability
Ideologically, a jury system
fits in well with Western liberal democracy. Robert Precht, a US
defense lawyer, is a strong advocate of the current developments in
Japan. Having defended one of the suspects in the aftermath of the
1993 World Trade Center bombing, Precht has witnessed firsthand the
ability of a jury to act as a check on political power, media spin
and other obstructions to justice. He has been in Japan talking to
academics, lawyers and judges about the coming changes, because he
sees them as not just benefiting Japanese citizens but also as having
a positive effect on society at the global level: "Japan, in
terms of expressing its views diplomatically, in terms of having a
more active citizenry to put demands on government, I think there are
dividends for the international community." The example he gives
is in healthcare--he argues that treatments that are available to
patients in other countries, from the US to Thailand, are not
available to patients in Japan because of the regulation process, and
crucially, this is the case because of an absence of lobby groups and
non-profit organizations. For him, Japan has a very "underdeveloped
civil society." He believes that people are not making their
voices heard and that the jury system will empower citizens to hold
the state accountable for its failures.
A first criticism of this
view might be that there are actually many lobby groups in Japan,
it's just that they tend to be focused on issues such as maintaining
Japanese sovereignty over disputed territories or limiting the
liberties of resident foreigners. However, this does highlight a need
for at least a more balanced civil society, if not an expanded one.
There are others who are more cynical or pessimistic about the
potential of the jury system to foster more grassroots democratic
practices. The most common and damning criticism appears to be that
reforms will not actually make any difference. A Japanese junior high
school teacher confided, "Even if we have lay judges, I don't
trust the police and the judiciary in Japan--they will do what they
want to do anyway." Taking it one step further, Shunkichi
Takayama, a defense lawyer who has led a campaign against the new
system argues that it will actually legitimize corrupt practices by
making the people puppets--the powerful interest groups will just be
using citizens as a veil for their actions.
Precht's
response to such criticism is that of course nothing will happen
immediately, but that at least by having regular citizens involved in
the process, lawyers and the police will be forced to be more
transparent. Indeed, it has been alleged that Japanese police often
force confessions and the 99.9% conviction rate may indicate that the
decision to condemn has been made in advance of the trial--if there
are corrupt practices, the presence of outsiders will make it harder
to get away with them.
Western commentators often
point out that the system won't work in Japan because of the vertical
nature of society and the Japanese fear of self-expression,
particularly in front of people they perceive to be their social
superiors. For example, Robert M Bloom in a 2005 paper from Boston
College Law School, points to the "hierarchical nature of
Japanese culture" and "the ideal of harmony ingrained in
the Japanese culture" that prompt him to question "how many
jurors will take a position and risk the wrath of the group?" In
response Judge Onizawa exclaims that "Japanese do have
opinions!" and believes that the system is needed to allow these
to be expressed and listened to as much as it is necessary for the
people to get to know the judicial institutions. For him it is up to
the judge to show leadership and be able to create an environment
where people don't feel intimidated and to encourage an atmosphere of
constructive debate. He and Precht would agree that the bottom line
is that the clock cannot be turned back: it is up to the judiciary
and citizens alike to make the system a success.
Practical conundrums
If the moral and ideological
debate isn't thorny enough, the practical alterations and adjustments
that need to be made before 2009 are seemingly endless. For one,
existent courtrooms are simply not big enough to house a nine-person
panel and will have to be extended. Then there are the questions of
jury duty against personal or work obligations. Will employees get
compensation? Will employers get compensation? Will daycare centers
be available for parents to leave their children? What about
psychological counselling for service in traumatic cases? All are
very pertinent questions but to be fair, Japan, having studied jury
systems of other countries, has been able to plan very carefully for
such issues and while many questions still remain, there is a very
good chance that once the teething problems have been resolved, there
will be structures in place to facilitate the system as in any other
country. The Supreme Court is vocal about its concerns and it will be
a struggle between them and the Diet to tweak the system into shape.
One of the more complicated
practical difficulties to be surmounted surrounds the right to refuse
lay judge service and, for want of a better phrase, the jury is still
out on this one. According to Professor Wilson there were initially
some who were pushing for custodial penalties to be introduced for
those who refused jury duty without a valid excuse, but this was
rejected in favour of lighter punishments. Those wishing to withdraw
will be evaluated on a case by case basis, with the objective that
anyone for whom it would cause a significant financial loss or render
their family life precarious, an exemption would be possible. The
educational materials, including the DVD mentioned at the start of
this article, tackle this issue extensively and there is no reason to
think that this will be any more of a difficult practical problem
than it is in other countries. What might be different is the number
of people who would like to refuse.
One Japanese office worker
told us that she believes many will try to refuse because they fear
for their safety, particularly in yakuza (organized crime) cases. The
popular perception is that gangsters have greater powers than the
police. She said that if judges want people to embrace the
opportunity to participate as a lay judge, there need to be strong
messages sent out by the police that they can protect people from
recriminations. Others could be inclined to refuse simply because of
the newness of the system and more still because they imagine a trial
to be emotionally draining. This will make striking a balance between
empathy for citizens' concerns and the need to compel people to serve
their turn a tough labor. The Supreme Court has so far staged over
500 mock-trials in order to address some of these issues, but
according to Japanese newspapers the majority of people do not want
to sit as lay judges. Reports of mock-trials range from the sublime
to ridiculous with stories of long drawn out silences to allegations
that the Asahi Shimbun was paying people to attend.
The verdict
When we asked Robert Precht
what he thought of the apathetic or pessimistic mood of the majority
of Japanese to the incoming changes, he was unsurprised: "if
there was a vote about whether or not to have the jury system now, it
would be voted against." However, he is firm in his belief that
over time society, business and the institutions of state will adjust
to the system and that overall the lay judge system will be a
massively positive step for Japan.
Having looked at some of the
criticism and practical issues involved, it is still hard to disagree
and say that the lay judge system will be a negative. The greatest
danger may be that the system fails to make any impact, and it simply
forces corrupt officials to take greater precautions and confirms
people's existing doubts about the judiciary.
The British intellectual and
writer G.K. Chesterton, known for his often cynical and 'common
sense' views, found the experience of serving on a jury one which led
him to a rare contemplation on the virtues of the system. He wrote in
The Twelve Men (1909) that:
"Our
civilization has decided, and very justly decided that determining
the
guilt or innocence of men is a thing too important to be trusted to
trained
men ... When it wants a library catalogued, or the solar system
discovered,
or any trifle of that kind, it uses up specialists. But when
it
wishes anything done which is really serious it collects twelve of
the
ordinary men standing around."
One hopes that the unique
Japanese system of six lay judges and three professionals is an even
worthier decision.
Bibliography
for "Judging thy neighbour: an exploration of how the lay judge
system to be implemented in 2009 will affect Japanese society"
View
more issues:
Peter
Harris "Judging
thy neighbour: an exploration of how the lay judge system to be
implemented in 2009 will affect Japanese society".
Japan, Inc.. . FindArticles.com. 22 Oct. 2008.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NTN/is_73/ai_n21081530
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NTN/is_73?pnum=5&opg=n21081530&tag=artBody;col1
Lay Judges to Join
Bench in Japan
Posted Aug 25, 07 8:38
AM CDT in World,
Arts
& Living
(Newser)
– Japan will give citizens the gavel in an effort to counteract
its judicial system’s prejudice for presuming guilt. Six
citizens and three trained jurists will sit on criminal cases, and
the majority will rule, Bloomberg reports. The new system follows a
clamor of criticism about forced confessions, inhumane treatment of
death row inmates and Japan’s 99.9% conviction rate.
The
UN, the Council of Europe and several human rights groups have all
taken note, and even the island nation’s bar association has
called for a moratorium on executions until action is taken. A top
Supreme Court official said lay judges would lower the conviction
rate, but some activists were unsure. In a mock trial to test the
system, citizens wanted to lengthen the offender’s sentence.
Similar programs
utilizing ordinary citizens as judges have been implemented by
Germany and Norway. It "assures a more open and transparent
process," according to Norwegian Public Prosecutor Linda Myrdal.
Under the new program,
ordinary Japanese citizens would serve as judges, teamed with
professional jurors. "Once lay citizens start participating in
trials, the conviction rate will decline," said Tomonao...
(Index Open)
http://www.newser.com/story/6390/lay-judges-to-join-bench-in-japan.html
