Some people who have served as lay judges in Japan have spoken of the psychological stress they suffered after having to view photos of grisly crime scenes as well as decide on whether or not to hand

Not too sure how it works here but I do believe that citizens should take part in not only the justice system but in government as well. People in this country just wait around to be told what to do or think.

I think the whole "jury of your peers" idea requires a certain sense of independent thinking and decision making capability among the population, which doesn't seem to be Japan's strong suit.

I am still trying to figure out the real reason it was ever introduced. Branches of government and authority in Japan are not renowned for encouraging or expanding citizen oversight or participation (Yes, all you "what about" merchants, there are plenty of other countries like that too). So there just has to be some motive that ultimately entrenches existing power. I could be wrong though.

The lay 'judges' should not be getting involved in questioning the accused or other witnesses.That is a bizarre mishmash of roles. And if the system helps to highlight the dreadfully wrong and outdated concept of capital punishment is, great!

TBH, I don't see how laymen could ever be completely impartial or unbiased towards a case, especially a criminal case. Having them as judges seems like a very poor idea. A better option would probably be professional judge + laymen jury needing consensus

It's important to remember that the lay judge system is not a jury system. Juries are meant to sit quietly and act as independent arbiters of the facts. Juries don't decide on sentences, they can't ask the defendant any questions, and they are protected from hearing irrelevant prejudicial evidence that the prosecution might want to drop into their ear. None of this is true in Japan. The 'lay judge' system in Japan is actually identical to the 'people's assessor' in China and the old Soviet system. That alone tells you that we are heading down the wrong path.

Since most lay judges will only ever hear one single case, how is it logical to expect them to hand down an appropriate sentence or even offer a meaningful contribution? In jury systems, the judge alone decides on the sentence because he/she has the experience of hearing hundreds of similar cases and can make a judgement about where a particular defendant should be placed on the culpability scale. This judgement is completely outside the competence of a 'lay judge' or a jury. By definition, every criminal that a 'lay judge' sentences will be the first, only, and therefore 'worst' offender that they have ever encountered. How does this contribute to an appropriate sentence?

In fact, juries are often specifically instructed to avoid considering the possible sentence when they deliberate because it could affect their judgement of the facts. Nobody can be objective when they think the defendant is guilty, but they also disagree with the minimum sentence that they will be forced to impose. The lay judge system hasn't squared this circle and it's just an illogical mess. Either bring in a real jury system or stick with an experienced judge that isn't going to be played by the prosecutors.

M3M3M3, actually in some cases in the United States, most famously for death penalty cases, yes, the jury decides on the sentence as well.

While I can agree with many of your comments on the lay judge system and its imperfections, I'll address the specific parts of the question on 'psychological stress.'

To those who say this, I'd like to just say..... I'm sorry, but this is one time where I think "shouganai" applies. Guess what? The world isn't all pop stars, tarento sucking down karage and orgasmically screaming "umaiiiiiI!" for TV, and the boring drudgery of the office. The world is not always cute and cuddly and safe.

There is EVIL in the world. There are people who do horrific acts. As adults, hopefully responsible enough to either vote or take part in society to the point that we want to make the world a better place, the worst thing you can do is stick your head in the sand and try and slough off your responsibility to act and do something about these situations. Instead, you need to act as an adult and face up to this, and be willing to say "No. I condemn this act, and I'm willing to say so."

So you feel stress? That's part of life. And the sooner that the overgrown adolescents who sometimes become "adult" members of society deal with this, the better off society as a whole can be.

I think its good that there are now regular people participating in the ""justice"" system BUT I also think they should be more like a jury, NOT the current lay-judge thing, that just doesn't seem appropriate & its even problematic to say the least after a few years reading about cases that have a few bits reported on.

It's a civic duty. Suck it up and deal with it.

M3M3M3JUL. 07, 2016 - 10:05AM JST

The 'lay judge' system in Japan is actually identical to the 'people's assessor' in China and the old Soviet system.

Nonsense. In what aspect is it identical to Chinese or Soviet system? Japanese system was modeled after the systems of European countries.

M3M3M3, actually in some cases in the United States, most famously for death penalty cases, yes, the jury decides on the sentence as well.

Only in five states in fifty do juries decide sentences other than death. When its death, juries decide sentencing in 29 of the 38 states with capital punishment. You can check those facts by searching for a PDF called "THE CASE FOR JURY SENTENCING" by Morris B. Hoffman from Duke Law. Anyway, M3M3M3 is correct for the overwhelming most part. The majority of American sentences are decided by a judge. Its the standard even if there are exceptions. Not much help to split hairs on this.

And I don't know how the lay judges are chosen, but I think it should be recognized that some people are more sensitive than others and there is nothing so wrong with that that it should be "beaten" out of them. If someone could not handle the horrors of certain trials, they should be vetted out and spared the experience. I am sure there are enough citizens who can take it that we don't need to traumatize people just to have enough lay judges. The old "buck up princess" line just smacks of a serious lack of empathy.

@CH3CHO

Nonsense. In what aspect is it identical to Chinese or Soviet system?

It's identical in the sense that two members of the general public are chosen at random and compelled to sit with a professional judge in even the most serious criminal cases.

Japanese system was modeled after the systems of European countries.

Yes, the general Civil Law system was modelled after the German system that existed near the turn of the last century. But, the 'lay judge' system is a very recent addition that was introduced in 2009. To my knowledge, there has never been a European system which has employed anything equivalent to what Japan has today.

However, the term 'lay judge' is very unhelpful and confusing because there are may countries that employ non-legally qualified people to sit as non-professional judges (ie magistrates in the UK, or Schoffen in Germany). But these people put themselves forward as volunteers for the job, they sign an oath, they undergo training and a background check. They also gain experience after hearing multiple cases over may years of doing the job. These non-legally qualified judges are sometimes called 'lay judges' but they are completely different from the 'lay judges' in Japan.

Japan is a fantasy world. Participating in "Juries" is part of democratization, however Japan is very weak in critical thinking. The education system needs a revolution to prepare young people to participate in society. I like having the jury system here but I also think it'd be pretty easy to abolish it as individual responsibility and democracy are especially undervalued in a purposeful way in Japan.

Pointless having it in Japan, where at the end of the day, the members of the jury will just defer to the oldest person among them....

but they are completely different from the 'lay judges' in Japan

I think that's overstating it. There are two elements - the method of selection and the role played in trials. Magistrates in the UK are quite different as they are fully in charge of their courts. But the role of Schoffen in Germany and of "lay judges" in other countries (e.g. Austria, Norway, Sweden, Finland) is similar to the role of lay judges in Japan. The method of selection varies.

@albaleo

I agree that some European systems might be a bit closer to Japan, but when you look closely they are still very far apart.

It's not only the method of selection that varies, there are many procedural safeguards that don't exist in the Japanese system. For example, the Schoffen aren't dependent on the judge to instruct them on the law, they don't deliberate together, the Schoffen cast their votes before the professional judge in order not to be influenced, and they also render their own judgement (which could provide grounds for appeal in there is some error or law or logic) rather than the anonymous vote you find in Japan. I think the defining element is the degree of influence and control and influence that the professional judge has over the lay judges here in Japan.

M3M3M3JUL. 07, 2016 - 07:21PM JST @CH3CHO

Nonsense. In what aspect is it identical to Chinese or Soviet system?

It's identical in the sense that two members of the general public are chosen at random and compelled to sit with a professional judge in even the most serious criminal cases.

Oh, then it is completely different. In Japan, 6 lay-judges sit with 3 professional judges. The 9 person panel hears a case.

@CH3CHO

Yes, but that's only because the types of cases that are serious enough to employ lay judges are also the same cases that will always require a 3 judge panel in Japan. They've kept the ratio. But using the word 'identical' was a mistake on my part, there are obviously some differences from country to country. But I stand by my claim that the Japanese system is much closer to Soviet and Chinese system. In some ways the state has even more control in Japan since even all the lay judges cannot convict anyone without the approval of one of the judges.