Group seeks privacy for rape victim in Aomori lay jury trial

Friday 10th July, 07:00 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 20 Total Comments Show All

movieguy at 10:51 AM JST - 10th July

"We are opposed to making sexual crimes subject to jury trials in the first place..."

I'm having a really hard time trying to figure out why this women's group would want to leave this in the hands of any of these fossil, MEN (sorry, but MOST are men) judges. Most of them still think boys will be boys and by some of the rulings over the last five years alone, it's quite obvious that even if convicted they would get suspended sentences anyway.
goodDonkey at 12:22 PM JST - 10th July

TokyoHustla said:

This is public information in the public record, and must be published. The First Amendment of the Book of Constitutions guarantees our right to free speech.

I never heard of the "Book of Constitutions" was it a bestseller? By your logic all Top Secret information "must be published." Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of information. One is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The other is a federal law passed in the 1970's called the "Freedom of Information Act." The Freedom of Information Act has many exclusions; rightfully so.

As others have eluded to, the government has an obligation to protect victims. I also like the idea of some victims behind a screen or on a video conference with obscured details of the face. In the U.S. it says individuals have a right to confront their accusers, this can be done with questioning. Exposing one's identity is not a requirement of confronting one's accuser. The only problem I see is that a Defense Attorney often needs to interview witnesses to an alleged crime. He or she should be entitled to do so especially if locating a witness would exonerate a defendant. As in so many cases with the law it is very important to protect victim's rights and it is also important to ensure a fair trial and legal proceedings because some people are truly "not guilty." The Defense Attorney should have access to the alleged victim's identity. If they want a law protecting the alleged victim's identity then I think it should be considered privileged information just like attorney-client information. It would be an ethics violation subject to disbarment to disclose this information outside the confines of defense of his or her client. Nearly impossible to enforce since in interviews trying to locate witnesses it might be necessary to use the alleged victims name. I have no desire to protect a criminal's "rights." I do however want to protect both the falsely accused and actual victims.
Disillusioned at 02:30 PM JST - 10th July

This is a good concept for a new game show. 'Guess the name of the defendant' - Come on down! - Stay out of trouble people. You don't want to end up in front of one of these juries.
BigInJapan at 02:35 PM JST - 10th July

I'm having a really hard time trying to figure out why this women's group would want to leave this in the hands of any of these fossil, MEN (sorry, but MOST are men) judges. Most of them still think boys will be boys and by some of the rulings over the last five years alone, it's quite obvious that even if convicted they would get suspended sentences anyway.

And I am having a hard time trying to understand why should sexual crimes be judged by jury? The victims are extremely sensitive to discretion, and enough to state that she wasn't virgin and the older half of the jury already start to booh that "slut! slut!". That is not a great help anyone except the criminal statistics.
bobbafett at 03:51 PM JST - 10th July

the use of photos in the trial be limited as they might remind the woman of the incident

any other important evidence you want excluded? how about DNA? The days of a quick lynching and forced confession in Japan are almost at an end. womans groups have gotta run with the times too.
knowitall at 04:20 PM JST - 10th July

This is public information in the public record, and must be published. The First Amendment of the Book of Constitutions guarantees our right to free speech.

What in the world are you talking about??? The Japanese constitution has never been amended even once since its 1947 enactment. This cannot even be the first chapter, as that defines the role of the Emperor.

Are you confusing Aomori Japan with Aomori in some other country?
dammit at 04:22 PM JST - 10th July

Letting the victim look at the names of the jury is not going to work out.

Perhaps this group has never heard of jury nobbling, but eventually a victim's relatives will start harassing the jury members for a conviction.

Not useful if they really want justice.
ThonTaddeo at 05:16 PM JST - 10th July

The use of the word "victim" in this article is irresponsible. It presumes guilt, which won't be established until the trial concludes. Use the word "plaintiff" or 'accuser" or even "alleged victim".

I don't have a problem with trial participants requesting anonymity, though. The accused party should have the same right.
Triumvere at 05:38 PM JST - 10th July

Change of venue?
polarmalik at 10:10 PM JST - 10th July

Yes the rape victim's name and photos must not be flashed across newspaper and in the court the defense lawyer should refrain from asking questions which may hurt her emotionally. She has already suffered enough - the case should not be allowed to linger to much and should be finalized within two weeks maximum and the rapist should face the firing squad.
mnemosyne23 at 11:20 PM JST - 10th July

May I make a suggestion? Why doesn't the Japanese legal system take a look at how other countries handle the issue of privacy, especially in regards to sexual crimes? Japan is hardly the first country to incorporate a jury system into court proceedings -- find another country's system that fits the bill and adapt it. Why try and reinvent the wheel?

And I am having a hard time trying to understand why should sexual crimes be judged by jury? The victims are extremely sensitive to discretion, and enough to state that she wasn't virgin and the older half of the jury already start to booh that "slut! slut!". That is not a great help anyone except the criminal statistics.

This is why potential lay judges/jurors should be questioned first on their opinions regarding the type of crime involved. During the selection process, or voir dire, if a potential juror is asked, "If you knew that an alleged rape victim had engaged in intercourse with past boyfriends, unrelated to the rape, what would you think?" and that juror answers, "She wasn't a virgin? Slut! Slut, slut, slut!" then clearly that person should NOT be included on the jury panel. Likewise, if they're asked, "What do you think would be a reasonable sentence for a rapist?" and the potential juror answers, "Hang him from the highest tree and leave him for the crows," then again, that person shouldn't be on the jury.

(I know most people wouldn't answer such questions in such a direct manner -- shouting "SLUT!" isn't very polite at the best of times, let alone in front of lawyers -- but I'm just using these as examples)

An impartial jury should be both impartial to the alleged victim and impartial to the alleged assailant. Only after you've narrowed down the initial pool of jurors should the questions begin winnowing down to specifics of the crime in question, including the identities of the accuser and the accused. It is not by any means an easy process to put together a pool of eligible, approved candidates, but it's the only way to ensure justice is served, be it through a guilty verdict or exoneration.

I feel sorry for this woman that her case has become the guinea pig for the jury system's handling of sexual crimes, and I sincerely hope her privacy is protected. That said, I also hope the accused receives a fair and just trial based on the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, and if he's found innocent I hope he can return to regular life unharmed. On the other hand, if he's found guilty I hope he's thrown in prison to rot for the rest of his life, as all filthy rapists should be.

...clearly, I shouldn't be on this jury.
usaexpat at 11:30 PM JST - 10th July

The victim may not welcome the attention but what is the court supposed to do, get jurors from another city? Not very practical, I'm afraid this is just one of many flaws with the jury system.
Fadamor at 02:50 AM JST - 11th July

GoodDonkey, why the heck are you applying the U.S. Constitution to something that happened in Japan? You can quote the U.S. Constitution until you're blue in the face, but it HAS NO BEARING on the laws in Japan. Remember where you are posting.
goodDonkey at 05:23 AM JST - 11th July

Fadamor said:

GoodDonkey, why the heck are you applying the U.S. Constitution to something that happened in Japan? You can quote the U.S. Constitution until you're blue in the face, but it HAS NO BEARING on the laws in Japan. Remember where you are posting.

I was and am well aware where I am posting. The discussion was on the legal, moral and ethics of privacy for rape victims. The U.S. laws I used were the only basis I could use since I don't know Japanese law.

I do fail to see your point of taking time to criticize my lack of knowledge without: a.) Quoting Japanese law yourself or b.) Giving your own legal, ethical or moral reasoning on the matter. You took the opportunity to comment on this news item only to say what most people knew that which I already knew "[That the U.S. constitution] has no bearing on the laws in Japan."

It does appear Article 21 of the Japanese constitution guarantees free speech. So I used the American example. It would appear everything I said about the right to free speech was true.

Article 37 (Japan's constitution) guarantees the right to a public trial before an impartial tribunal with counsel for one's defense and compulsory access to witnesses. So it appears that I was correct about a Japanese defendant's right to confront witnesses.

I did the best I could to discuss the moral and ethical ramifications given the legal knowledge I had of my country. I don't think I did that bad.
LoveUSA at 10:22 AM JST - 13th July

rape victims and victimns of paparazi, stlkers should prosecute the criminal offenders. It is easy when you know their identity and when they foolishly reval themselves.