How effective do you think the lay jury system will be when it starts in Japan next year?

Tuesday 22nd July, 08:39 AM JST

Latest 15 of 29 Total Comments Show All

ninjaboy at 02:47 PM JST - 22nd July

This system will not work in Japan. Japanese are, by their very nature and culture, discouraged from thinking critically - or perhaps that should be thinking critically independant of the group. Any accused brought before them is going to be 'guilty' whether that be the case or not. Then, of course, there are reprisals from the police and/or authorities should any 'accused' be found innocent. Who would want to serve on a jury? Even if Japan starts to give the outward appearance of bringing its justice system into the 21st century by claiming to have a more 'fair' or 'just' system, high conviction rates will continue regardless.
Zen_Builder at 02:55 PM JST - 22nd July

ninjaboy.

Watch "12 Angry Men" than comment again, it is a movie from "1957" produced in the USA. It is FREE now on the net.

Human nature don't change regardless of race, religion, political orientation, whatever.
niku at 06:13 PM JST - 22nd July

maybe if the defendants can wear fake ties and slippers, things will be much more fair.
serindipity at 10:08 PM JST - 22nd July

One point that concerns me is, the culture of 'sempai'. Japanese people are afraid to speak out against anybody in a higher position or older than themselves. Their opinion is usually that of the sempai regardless of their own beliefs. This leads me to believe the jury members would agree with whatever the higher or older member of the jury says. Justice Japan style!
irishosaru at 12:07 AM JST - 23rd July

Given that judges will be part of the jury, the term "lay jury" is a bit misleading.

I don't think it will work well at all.

I think is is just more lip-service towards the international community while maintaining the status quo.
borscht at 06:27 PM JST - 23rd July

I fear that the average Taro won't be able to argue with the eldest judge on the jury but I think the average Hanako (especially of the housewife variety) will be able to argue with a judge. When she does, though, I'm sure the judge will suck his teeth, nod at the men on the jury and say, "Women, eh?" Everyone will laugh (except Hanako) and then vote to convict.

If I ever seen evidence of a younger man arguing logically with an older man, I'll change my opinion. So far, though, I haven't seen it.
Piglet at 07:17 PM JST - 23rd July

Well, there is a bit flaw in the system: judges will be part of the jury. Knowing the social structure of Japan (especially outside Tokyo), it will be very difficult to observe real rational discussions between jurors and between the jurors and the judges. Most likely, minority opinions will not be heard, or the jurors with a different opinion will hesitate to go against the group. This is a good idea, but I would suggest the following: - not having judges together with jurors - each juror will have a special training session explaining that every opinion counts and that it is a very serious matter. The group thinking does not apply to this situation.
KitsuneYoukai at 01:17 AM JST - 24th July

Perhaps it will turn out better than people here think. Maybe it will encourage people to step up and speak their mind; hopefully!
taikan at 02:00 AM JST - 24th July

High conviction rates are the norm in any legal system for a variety of reasons. Often it is because the "finders of fact," whether they are lay jurors (as in the United States) or professional judges, do not truly believe in the presumption of innocence, but instead come to the courtroom with an underlying belief that a defendant would not be prosecuted if he/she is not guilty. This varies greatly depending on location. For example, in the US jurors in large cities tend to be much more skeptical of law enforcement than jurors in suburban or rural areas. Other times, it is because prosecutors fear the stigma attached to losing a case, and therefore only bring cases in which the likelihood of conviction is very high. [Note: Saying that the likelihood of conviction is very high is not the same as saying that the defendant actually committed the crime which he/she is accused of having committed.]

As for the supposed tendency of Japanese to defer to a "sempai," that is not the case within the legal system. Many types of cases currently are decided by three-judge panels, and the discussions and arguments among the three judges, particularly in civil cases, often are intense. In part, this is because (unlike in the US) in Japan there is no tradition of issuing dissenting opinions, so all the judges on the panel ultimately must reach a consensus before a decision is issued. Whether lay jurors will feel comfortable arguing with judges, however, is another matter, and likely will vary greatly depending on the personalities of the lay jurors sitting on any particular panel.
DigDug at 12:55 PM JST - 24th July

Jury systems suck everywhere. Why let a group of random people, just because they are citizens, make life or death decisions for people?

Leave it to professionals who SHOULD BE in such a position due to their knowledge and merit.
USARonin at 01:00 PM JST - 24th July

Unfortunely, in many juristictions, judges are selected for their political views. There is nothing judicial about the way they get in.

If all the judges were picked because of their conservative views, I could live with that better than if they were picked because of their liberal ones.

USAR
GJP2006 at 01:27 PM JST - 24th July

I have many of the same concerns other have expressed here. Judges in Japan are the elite of the elite - they are chosen from among the best test takers, or those passing the bar exam ;-). They are notorious for being detached and completely unaware of what is going on in the life of the average Japanese - imagine them sitting with a group of folks with whom they have nothing in common and then imagine this group of laypeople will be unlikely to challenge the wisdom of the esteemed "sensei" and so who knows what will happen. I think it is for show as many things in Japan are and that is really a shame when one is dealing with the criminal justice system and such serious matters.

I am also interested to see how legal professionals in Japan work within the system as Japanese attorneys are basically trained as technicians and not as critical thinkers trained to put on a case for the jury. We shall see.
taikan at 02:38 AM JST - 25th July

USAR -- Political views are not taken into account in the selection of judges in Japan. After passing the bar exam, all future judges, prosecutors and attorneys in Japan go through the same training, which includes working in judicial chambers. At the end of that process, those who performed well and who expressed an interest in becoming judges are invited to become what are essentially judge trainees. After 5 years they are able to make some minor decisions on their own, and if they perform well then after 10 years they become full fledged judges.

GJP2006 -- Knowing how to put on a case for a jury is not the same as being trained as a critical thinker. For the most part, putting on a case for a jury focuses on identifying the "emotional triggers" that will cause jurors to vote a particular way. In any event, training has been made available both to prosecutors and private attorneys in Japan regarding how to deal with lay jurors and the new trial procedures required to implement the saiban-in system.
GJP2006 at 02:48 PM JST - 25th July

Knowing how to put on a case for a jury is not the same as being trained as a critical thinker.

I beg to differ - critical thinking skills are essential for putting together a coherent and compelling case for a jury - as well as the emotional appeal you cite.
Rekishika at 06:42 PM JST - 26th July

Lay jury systems have a history of causing injustice. The reason is to let untrained people decide the often complex cases of guilt or innocence. If there is a problem with prejudice of any kind in any society, a lay jury will bring it to light. That being said, I agree it can only work where there is outspoken disagreement, and where people feel free to disagree. Has this condition been met...?