Victim, defendant's mom questioned on 2nd day of jury trial with interpreters

Thursday 10th September, 04:11 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 18 Total Comments Show All

TokyoLurker at 11:41 PM JST - 9th September

I wonder what races are involved?
womanforwomen at 12:17 AM JST - 10th September

‘‘Do you love your son?’’ one female juror asked the mother, adding, ‘‘Would you be sad if he went away?

I believe that this question was asked for another reason. The news item does not give a lot of facts about the background of the case.
BurakuminDes at 12:30 AM JST - 10th September

You just know they are gonna throw the book at the kid. He's one of those foreigners! Jurors will be loving putting him away.
ca1ic0cat at 01:37 AM JST - 10th September

Wow, that's going to be a tough trial. I can only imagine having to defend myself in Japanese with all the nuances that I don't understand.
mnemosyne23 at 02:08 AM JST - 10th September

I want to reiterate a point I believe I made previously, which is that I find it highly inappropriate that jurors are able to ask questions of the defendant, witnesses, or anyone involved with the case. "Do you love your son?" What kind of question is that? And honestly, what does it have to do with the verdict? Whether or not the mother would miss the son is not up for debate and shouldn't be considered when determining punitive action. The question is, to what level did the young man understand the wrongness of his actions at the time of the crime and what is the likelihood that he will become a repeat offender. I understand the utility of having witnesses to attest to the defendant's background and character as a way to measure these two factors, but that should be all. If someone's going to ask the mother if she'll miss her son it should be the defense attorney, not the jury. The jury should be impartial observers, not active participants in the courtroom.

But that's just my two yen.

I also have a problem with the lack of testing or credentialing required for courtroom interpreters. It is CRUCIAL that speakers who are not fluent in Japanese are provided with trusted interpreters who have been vetted not only for linguistic ability but also for professional integrity. I'm glad to see that two interpreters were present here, as that should help cut down on the chances of miscommunication, but it's still not enough to protect the civil rights of non-native speakers, nor to ensure that justice is carried out in an appropriate manner. If an interpreter does not have sufficient language skills, a mistranslation of a question or an answer may provide the court with inaccurate or misleading information that might sway the verdict. Likewise, if an interpreter is not certified in some way, and is not vetted for professional integrity or ethics, he or she might deliberately misinterpret questions or answers in a direct attempt to sway the verdict. There needs to be a much more detailed process for selecting interpreters to avoid potential problems in the future.
OssanAmerica at 03:08 AM JST - 10th September

Instead we are now seeing emotional subjectivity swaying the jurors. I >would hope the woman loves her son, but what on earth does it have to do >with the crime committed?

This is the flaw with a juror system. Here in the United States 10% of the trial is about the actual crime, and 90% is spent on how much the victim, the victims family, and everyone who ever came within 10ft of the victim suffered. American lawyers now specialize in emotionally directing a jury rather than proving innocence or guilt of the actual crime. Looks like this sad state of affairs has come to Japan as well.
taikan at 03:08 AM JST - 10th September

The article clearly states that the defendant pleaded guilty on the first day of the hearing, so the only issue to be decided by the court is the proper sentence. Things such as the impact of a prison sentence on a defendant and his/her family are routinely considered as part of sentencing in many, if not most, legal systems. So is remorse. For example, in the US the federal sentencing guidelines provide for a reduction in sentence for "acceptance of responsibility" by a defendant who has pleaded guilty.

As for "jurors" asking questions, that also occurs in a lot of legal systems. In some, the "juror" asks the question directly, in others the question has to be given to a judge first who then decides if it is a "proper" question under the applicable legal rules, in essence acting as a filter to keep out improper questions. It appears that Japan has elected not to have such a filter, and to allow lay judges to ask questions directly of a witness. That is a value judgment with which you may disagree, but it is not unreasonable.

The lack of objective standards to determine the competence of interpreters is a serious problem. One can only hope that Japan will rectify this problem, because a small difference in wording can have a significant impact on the outcome of a trial.
Fadamor at 04:53 AM JST - 10th September

In the States, Grand Jury jurors are allowed to ask questions of the prosecutors - mainly because guilt or innocence isn't determined by a Grand Jury... they only determine whether there seems to be enough evidence to GO to trial.

A juror asking questions at a criminal trial would get removed from the juror's box or worse, cause a mis-trial.

If you had jurors who limited their questions to aspects directly relating to the crime and testimony it might be a good system, but to let them delve into the feelings of a peripheral party to the defendant will only serve to taint the rest of the trial.
PepinGalarga at 05:32 AM JST - 10th September

another so called "trial" for someone who already pled guilty...

juries are a long way from doing any good.
JeffLee at 06:38 AM JST - 10th September

He aleady plead guilty! So why's he on trial? Is this some kind of Chairman Mao-inspired "struggle session"?
knoe666 at 07:23 AM JST - 10th September

Waste of tax payers money, its the old government scheme - sham it away through pension issues, concrete over everything with family run construction companies, employ old duffers to run subsidiary companies ... and all for nothing and this ....... spend, spend, spend

But the guy robbed people, beat some guy up - give him 3 years
fleetwood77 at 07:33 AM JST - 10th September

>

Now that is that bit that really has me worried. No testing, no certification, no way of knowing if they're really safe to be let loose in court. >

Just like the jury then!
ronaldk at 09:46 AM JST - 10th September

I certainly agree with the concerns above and was taken aback by such an unusual question to the mother. But I guess it is better than what happens in typical criminal trials in Japan where a rubber stamp judge with probably even more bias towards foreigners than the average Japanese would oversee testimony and make a judgment.
sarahsoy29 at 12:13 PM JST - 10th September

The interpreter thing is a serious and known problem. When I was teaching at the police academy in my prefecture, the students had to read a stack of articles and case studies about cases when bad interpreting had influenced the verdict. In one of the cases, the interpreter was later charged with obstructing justice or something like that because he tried to manipulate statements to influence the trial in the way he wanted it to go. Interpreters volunteer themselves and are responsible for rating their own language qualifications. Anyone familiar with foreign language education in Japan can see why this is a bad idea. They are not required to belong to any professional organizations with standards and codes of ethics. I hope using more than one interpreter becomes standard practice.
womanforwomen at 03:37 PM JST - 10th September

Could it be that this defendant committed these crimes as he wanted to rebel against something? Or he was seriously lacking in love and attention? When he was a minor, just got together with some friends and committed these acts. How much did this mother know about her child's behavior? The child repeated the crime. Why did he need that money? Mother was in her 30s and maybe did not know give the attention and guidance to the young boy. Why does she want to 'hold' him now?

Maybe the system was to find out if this 20 year old committed these crimes because he did not know how to express his fears, anger or frustrations and not because he wanted that money badly to buy drugs or something.If the case shows evidence that this boy will not repeat his acts, and the problem could have been his family, then it is better to asceratin that and let the boy go after serving for his crime. Maybe, the jury system was trying to do just that.

As for the interpreters, it is the same all over the world. Many cases of how interpreters twist things. Certification should be a must.