Group protests against lay judge system
Since 1943, Japan has had no jury system for its trials. All of that will change in May, when a new law goes into effect on May 21st. Randomly selected citizens will be required to serve as lay judges on panels that will – together with professional judges – issue decisions on serious criminal cases.
Many Japanese are dreading the possibility of having to serve as a lay judge, and bookstores are making a lot of money selling new self-help books on what lay judges are supposed to do. Polls have found that a majority of Japanese people do not want to serve as lay judges, and it seems that some of them have formed groups dedicated to abolishing the new system. Here is a Fuji TV report about a group that recently held an anti-lay judge system rally in Tokyo:
About 1800 people attended the event, which involved marching through the streets of Ginza carrying big banners and shouting about their dislike of the lay judge system.
Below is a rough translation of the main reasons the group opposes the lay judge system (taken from this website):
- Those who refuse to serve as lay judges may be fined. It’s unfair that only sick and elderly people can avoid lay judge duty without a penalty.
- This system completely disregards the views of those who don’t feel they can judge others.
- If you run a business and have to shut it down while you go to serve as a lay judge, the government will not compensate you for the value of the sales you may have lost during that period.
- The questioning during the lay judge selection process is an invasion of privacy. How dare these judges and lawyers ask us about our personal beliefs!
- If a majority decision by the judges can send a convicted person to the gallows, I will feel guilty even if I voted against finding the person guilty and giving them the death penalty.
- Lay judges will never be allowed to talk about the contents of the trials they judged, and could face punishment if it is ever discovered that they leaked such information. (Maximum penalty: six months in prison or 500,000 yen in fines)
- The accused will not be able to reject trial by lay judges. Those facing trial probably won’t be happy about being at the mercy of randomly-selected lay judges, and have no choice in the matter.
- The addition of lay judges makes things harder for lawyers, since decisions handed down can vary greatly depending on the personalities and preferences of the lay judges.
- The lay judges will just be used to give a rubber stamp to a decision already made in advance by the real judges. The real judges, lawyers, and police have already prepared the case and lay judges might have little effect on the actual outcome.
A group of lawmakers has begun attempts to delay the start of the system, as they plan to revise some of the sections of the law that citizens are most worried about.
For a good summary and discussion of the issue, check out this article over at NéoJaponisme.
- Akihabara News – Gadgetry from Japan (Subscribe)
- dannychoo.com – Your portal to Japan (Subscribe)
- Kirainet.com – A geek in Japan (Subscribe)
Full RSS Feed
Just goes to show, nobody likes jury duty
Rate this comment:
0 
0
bout damn time
Rate this comment:
0 
0
No one likes to serve jury duty, but I’d rather do that then be judged by one person with an agenda.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I’m really happy for the decision, to be honest. I’ve heard of too many horror stories of some random judge who wanted to interpret a law in their own way and find in a totally opposite way than common sense.
But on the other hand, I like how there’s going to be a mix of both lay and trained judges. Judges can also be there to make sure the tyranny of the majority does not affect the minority.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
it is good to have debates over the system.
The Jury system is getting less popular in Europe and in the U.S.
The jury system does not necessary means the jury’s judgement is always honoured.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The Jury system is getting less popular in Europe and in the U.S.
I dont see how use of plea bargaining demonstrates any decrease in general publics acceptance of juries.
More interesting, the list of protestors arguments above against jury system seems very self-centered and childish. None of the arguments show concern for incorrect verdicts delivered via jury. Yet most of the arguments revolve around perceived inconveniences to the chosen jurors, compensation, “forcing” poor jurors to analyze and form an independent opinion on an issue (i.e., to do some work), etc etc. Seems like they blatantly want to shirk basic civic responsibility – and give only the flimsiest of excuses for it.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
If you read the articles, it is clear that the articles are not talking about how the general public see the jury system.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The Jury system is getting less popular in Europe and in the U.S.
So the links are unconnected/irrelevant to what you stated?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I don’t see whether it is a genuine question or a childish question which shirks basic reader’s responsibility to read.
But anyway, the article is saying that the jury system is less frequently encountered in U.S. Britain, and Russia, in other words, it is getting less popular. Note one of definitions of “popular” is “frequently encountered” as in “popular theory”.
To put it another way, it says that people concerned—the defendants and the people in the government in U.S.Britain, and Russia —-are using and start using the system other than the jury system. Again the jury system is getting less popular among people concerned in Britain and Russia and not commonly used in the U.S.
As a side, have you heard of a story that the general public in the U.S. Britain, are against this tendency of not using the jury system commonly? If you have, let me know.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Its a genuine rhetorical question about apparently childlike reasoning. The topical article of this thread is about a group of misguided folk who proclaim that juries should not be available at all for anybody, based on some selfish reasoning. You posted a comment that the “popularity” – or as you awkwardly say “frequency of encounter” – of jury proceedings is decreasing in the US – strongly implying that the JPN protestors may not merely be selfish whiners, but rather may be onto some similar anti-jury trend as the US. This is misguided. There is no such trend in the US from your citation, even if there is a decrease in jury proceedings initiated (from an increase in plea bargains; optimizations of procedural rules, etc), the jury system is still intact and available as an option, even if not utilized in certain cases. There is no question or debate about the need for a jury system to exist in the US – it continues to be a constitutional right and a conceptual centerpiece of the US justice system. Its possible that there may be some equally misguided Americans who would join the Japanese protestors to decry the need for jury system, but they would probably not noted in the news, except perhaps as joke material. In an apparent attempt to add some positive context to something in Japan, you (again) draw false analogy to unrelated topics in the US. Its annoying.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I answered your question whether the link was unconnected/irrelevant to what I stated stated.
You haven’t answered my question whether you have heard of a story that the general public in the U.S. Britain, are against this tendency of not using the jury system commonly.
Nobody except you in this thread is saying that the group is misguided.(Not that I am saying their arguments is complete and conclusive)
That is one of the dictionary definitions
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/popular
You yourself said that the group claims weres based on on some selfish reasoning, implying that their claims are not entirely selfish.
Why do you label them as selfish whiners?
Labeling people in a negative way is a poor and childish way of a discusson,, though you seem to be fond of it.
I agree.
not exactly.
Point taken but it is unrelated.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Must be annoyed to be always cornered.
Is that what you think? Delusional. Obfuscation is not “cornering”.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
There should have been a much more thorough campaign to explain this decision to the public. Of course, that can never happen because it is admitting that there are severe problems with the current system.
While the legal system in Japan has a ways to go before I would feel comfortable should I ever need to be in a Japanese court, this is a large step forward, in my opinion.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The lay judge system is the epitome of stupidity.
I would never trust a lay judge, nor a group of them. Lawyers and Judges have spent -years- learning the conduct of law, and a lay judge has had no education of the sort. How can one expect to judge someone without the proper knowledge of why to do so.
Furthermore the lay judges are usually from a certain area (in the case of the US) where sometimes a large part of the population is biased towards one common view, which can be completely different in another area, thus giving a case different outcomes depending on the location where it took place. That is unfair and therefore undemocratic.
Even judges themselves have a hard time looking at cases in an unbiased manner, even though they have had years and years of training. So do not expect the same from a group of uninitiated to do better.
The lay judge system, may have had its purpose several hundreds of years ago when there wasn’t a capable judge within reasonable horseback riding distance. But today with so many good judges all over the place it’s hopelessly outdated.
However, in Japan, the judges tend to always convict the suspect. I am not sure why this is. Is it because the prosecution always builds a very strong and secure case before they go to court or is there something else going on?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The UK’s Independent on Sunday gives a good overview of Japan’s return to trial by jury for serious criminal cases in the following article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/juries-return-to-japanese-courts-after-66-years-1671072.html
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Not so good, they got an awful lot wrong:
“Oral testimony is rare” Huh? Despite the fact that every court report on the news devotes large sections of the report to “in court today, X testified that…”? Which brings us to…
“cross-examination all but unheard of” *ahem* “the defense/prosecutors challenged X’s testimony…”
“Evidence dug up by the authorities that could help the accused is often kept secret.” Well I have to admit I am not familiar with British law, but I am not aware of anything in US law that says the prosecutors have to disclose everything they know to the defense. They have to disclose everything they will present in court, to give the defense a fair chance to rebut the presented evidence, but I do not believe they have to disclose facts or evidence they will not present. Finding facts and evidence that will help the accused in the defense’s job.
“And there have been no claims for ineffective assistance of counsel.” Strange, I can recall seeing at least a couple of high-profile cases on the news where that was one of the reasons given for appealing.
“Indeed, Japanese has no such term.” Everytime I see “language Y has no word/term for Z”, warning bells go off. Japanese does indeed have a term for the phenomenon, 不十分な弁護 or 正当化の抗弁を適切に行わない、and there are doubtless more.
This is not to say that the main thrust of the article is in error, indeed I think they summed up the main forces behind Japan’s move to a jury system, and the history of the jury in Japan, very well. The errors they made do not really seem to add much to or detract much from the general flow of the article – which means they probably should have been just left out, especially since they are wrong.
Rate this comment:
0 
0