› Login to comment

9 Comments

• 

  timorborder at 01:33 PM JST - 13th August

  Couple of interesting issues here. Firstly, as I pointed out last week, it appears that the jurors didn't stick with the game plan, namely, acting as a jury while handing down a sentence that was in keeping with the sort of lenient sentence handed out under the previous system (specifically 5 to 10 years). Rather, these jurors got it into their heads that they should give the defendant a sentence that was in keeping with the crime - 15 years (basically a life sentence considering the defendant's age).

  On a second level, I don't like the idea of the defendant being able to appeal the length of sentence to a higher court (whose bench consists of full-time judges only). This is because of two issues. Firstly, the judges on the higher bench might hand down a lighter sentence, thus undermining the legitimacy of those who served as jurors. A lighter sentence would be a slap in the face to the jurors themselves and the whole idea of social participation in the legal system. Secondly, agreeing to hear any appeal would represent a huge precedent. To put it in other words, in the future anybody found guilty in a jury trial would seek to appeal to a higher bench, thus making the whole jury trial system meaningless. It would also further slow the already very slow moving wheels of justice in this country.

• 

  combinibento at 01:34 PM JST - 13th August

  Here's a question: Assuming these "professional jurors" are in fact judges or some other lifelong legal professional, how likely do you think it is that an appeal based on juror misconduct will be granted? Or the Japanese version of a JNOV in the US (when the judge essentially overrules the jury's findings in those rare cases where it is clear the jury was not being reasonable)? My guess is that 99% if not 100% of all such appeals will be rejected.

• 

  KansaiBen at 04:11 PM JST - 13th August

  Just a quick question.... Are these people in fact lay judges or jurors? Its my understanding that a jury's role is to listen to the evidence and decide if the person is guilty or not- not to decide what sentence he might get- thats the role of a judge. What am I missing here?

• 

  combinibento at 04:18 PM JST - 13th August

  KansaiBen - In this case the guy already confessed to the crime; there was no "guilt phase" and the jurors' job was specifically limited to determining how long the guy should be sent to the pokey. Which is quite odd, since usually when a perp pleads guilty, he does so because the prosecutor offers him a sentence which, presumably, is less than what he could get if faced with a jury. Here, the prosecutors asked for 16, the jury gave him 15, making it appear to me that he pled guilty with no offer on the table at all. What a weird system.

• 

  movieguy at 07:42 PM JST - 13th August

  timorborder and combinibento... Great points... JT you really should have spent a little more money for another paragraph or two saying what grounds he is appealing on. I'm not sure if he can say "a 15 year sentence is unfair" is grounds for an appeal.

  combinibento... Considering that most suspects are badgered, beaten or not allowed to sleep until they confess to their alleged crimes I'm sure this guy just confessed. In fact, not knowing exactly what happened at the point of arrest I'd be willing to bet that when the police arrived he just confessed immediately. There was no need for a deal to be made.

  Also, I think the modus operandi of the police here is to just tell suspects that the judge will go easy on them if they just confess. I have a feeling that's as much as they "offer."

  I really think had this been under the old system the judge would have given him a suspended sentence or 5 years at most. Hopefully the new system will have people fed up with crime and give these people what the prosecutors ask for. BUT... knowing many of the "confessions" are forced they need to get video cameras in those interrogation sessions before the system is really reformed...

• 

  tamesu at 08:17 PM JST - 13th August

  "On a second level, I don't like the idea of the defendant being able to appeal the length of sentence to a higher court (whose bench consists of full-time judges only). This is because of two issues. Firstly, the judges on the higher bench might hand down a lighter sentence, thus undermining the legitimacy of those who served as jurors. A lighter sentence would be a slap in the face to the jurors themselves and the whole idea of social participation in the legal system. Secondly, agreeing to hear any appeal would represent a huge precedent. To put it in other words, in the future anybody found guilty in a jury trial would seek to appeal to a higher bench, thus making the whole jury trial system meaningless. It would also further slow the already very slow moving wheels of justice in this country."

  I agree, this is a big problem with the Japanese trying to control everything on this island, at the detrement of its position in the eyes of global citizens.

• 

  bobbafett at 12:20 AM JST - 14th August

  I hope the lay jury system works out. The jury are just regular people like us who really do not want a creep like that back in the community near their loved ones and kids or hunting down the jurors once released.

  The judges however are part of a different social stratus and could not give a damn about the general public much like politicians.

• 

  taikan at 02:27 AM JST - 14th August

  It's amazing how little people know about legal systems both in Japan and elsewhere.

  All such systems, if they have any claim to legitimacy, allow for appeals, including appeals seeking review of the severity of the sentence. In some countries, an appeal is limited to review of the record in the lower court to see if reversible error occurred. However, an appeal in Japan results in de novo review, which means that essentially there is a new trial in the appellate court.

  The Japanese system does not allow for "plea bargains" that result in an agreed upon sentence. Also, as a matter of policy Japanese prosecutors do not drop some charges in return for a guilty plea on others. There is nothing "weird" about a system that does not provide for plea bargains. In fact, it is more intellectually honest than a system where plea bargains are used. The reason plea bargains are used in the United States is to speed up the process and allow the legal system to operate with fewer courts and fewer prosecutors. However, that allows persons who have committed multiple crimes to avoid being found guilty for each of those crimes, and also allows people who have committed a more serious crime to be found guilty only of a lesser charge. The Japanese have rejected that approach.

• 

  Badsey at 03:32 AM JST - 14th August

  Japanese are notoriously harsh on each other = this man is lucky he didn't get a death sentence. But at his age he may never get out of prison.

Register or Login to leave a comment