Concerns over revision of Juvenile Law

By Keiji Hirano

Panelists at a recent symposium in Tokyo voiced concerns over the government’s proposal to revise the Juvenile Law in order to allow crime victims or their relatives to observe the basically closed-door trials of minors.

While the parliamentary debates on the proposal are expected to start soon, the experts in juvenile delinquency said the revision will not contribute to promoting the sound rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents as the law advocates.

‘‘The Juvenile Law has essentially required only those who work for the common purpose—rehabilitation of minors—to attend juvenile trials,’’ Hiroko Goto, law school professor at Chiba University, told the symposium sponsored by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations. ‘‘But if the revision bill is enacted it will lead to the inclusion of those who are not cooperative toward the purpose in the court proceedings.’’

While the victims and their relatives want to know what happened, Goto, who has experience working as a volunteer probation officer and attends juvenile courts, said a judge should be authorized to explain the outcomes of court proceedings to them, rather than allowing them to observe the trial, in order to meet their needs.

As of Wednesday, almost half of the 52 local lawyers’ associations in Japan have come out with chairpersons’ statement against the revision, saying minors will be daunted in the presence of the victims and their relatives and that it will become difficult for them to describe their state of mind sincerely to the court.

Jimpachi Mori, original author of a popular comic featuring a family court judge, pointed out that the presence of the victims and their relatives, who hold grudges against the offenders, may prevent juvenile delinquents from reflecting properly on themselves.

‘‘I have interviewed reformatory officers and learned that they can help juvenile delinquents to think about how to make amends for their sins when they look objectively at what they did,’’ he told some 150 members of the audience.

From the floor, a college senior, who had been sent to a juvenile reformatory once for robbery resulting in bodily injury, spoke out to say, ‘‘I had considered the trial only as ‘a rite of passage,’ but was able to talk about myself there without hesitation as I was not blamed by anybody and was in an informal atmosphere.’’

‘‘While I could reflect upon myself in the belief that there is somebody who is thinking about me, the presence of any victims would have kept me from being honest,’’ he said. ‘‘A trial would be a rite of passage for most juvenile delinquents.’’

Another panelist, meanwhile, expressed her concern about how to make the rehabilitation of minors compatible with the rights of victims and their relatives.

Kaoru Motegi, a retired family court probation officer with 36 years of experience, said, ‘‘I have been wondering if it is possible to promote a healthy growing environment for juvenile delinquents while meeting the needs of victims.’’

‘‘I think victims and their relatives should be guaranteed to know what really happened to them,’’ she said. ‘‘On the other hand, concerned parties in a juvenile court sometimes praise a minor or reward their parents for their efforts. It will inevitably hurt victims if they are present there.’’

‘‘I believe, after all, we should put priority on the ideal of the Juvenile Law to pursue protection and sound growth for minors, and we need to establish a system to support victims and their relatives immediately after they are involved in an incident,’’ she added.

The Juvenile Law has been revised repeatedly during the past several years to introduce tougher penalties on minors in the face of a series of vicious juvenile crimes.

The revision in May last year featured a provision to lower the minimum age for sending minors to reformatories from 14 to around 12, stirring concerns among lawyers and legal experts that tougher penalties may infringe on the rights of minors and may not lead to a reduction in juvenile delinquency.

On the latest revision bill, Nobuo Matsuno, a House of Councillors member of the Democratic Party of Japan who attended the symposium, suggested there are still pros and cons regarding the matter within the main opposition party.

Matsuno, also a lawyer, said, ‘‘Personally, I do not think it is necessary to revise the law.’’

3 Comments

GrouchyGaijin at 08:47 AM JST - 10th April

This boggles the mind. If Japanese are considered minors, and treated like infants until they are twenty (or beyond), and they are charged in their late teens, how, logically, can they be expected to conduct themselves like adults in a court of law? As for folks being disruptive of court proceedings, that's called "contempt" and, surely, there are provisions for dealing with that already on the books? I mean everything else in this country is regulated to kingdom come! Or, is indecisiveness a national trait?
VoXman at 07:41 PM JST - 13th April

In the US we throw away bad teens like gomei, but in Japan they believe every child can be saved and turned around. I want to say good for them. Help rehibilitate. But I don't know if I would be so generous if my family was hurt by some delinquent Teen.
netrek at 07:32 PM JST - 16th April

Teens in the US and UK run rampant, it's disgusting. They rape, murder, sell drugs, rob, brutalize and bully others and then use the "I"m a minor you can't do much to me nyah nyah!" as they get some slap on the wrist. Unless they are truly a child such as less than 10 years old then they should be held accountable for harming others. Period.