Is that what you think? Delusional. Obfuscation is not “cornering”.

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.

Nobody except you in this thread is saying that the group is misguided.(Not that I am saying their arguments is complete and conclusive)

as you awkwardly say “frequency of encounter”

That is one of the dictionary definitions
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/popular

strongly implying that the JPN protestors may not merely be selfish whiners

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.

the jury
system is still intact and available as an option,

I agree.

even if not utilized in certain cases.

not exactly.

the vast majority of cases result in plea-bargains

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.

Point taken but it is unrelated.

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.

I don’t see why you are saying it. Just calm down.

In an apparent attempt to add some positive context to something in Japan,

Are you always attempting to add negative context to something in Japan ? Anyway I don’t see what’s wrong with viewing the matter from different perspectives.

you (again) draw false analogy to unrelated topics in the US.

What false analogy are you talking about?

Its annoying.

Must be annoyed to be always cornered.

“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.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/juries-return-to-japanese-courts-after-66-years-1671072.html

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?

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.

So the links are unconnected/irrelevant to what you stated?

I dont see how use of plea bargaining demonstrates any decrease in general publics acceptance of juries.

If you read the articles, it is clear that the articles are not talking about how the general public see the jury system.

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.

The jury is out（Economist)

In America, where a right to trial by jury is in the constitution, the vast majority of cases result in plea-bargains (so do not go to trial) or concern minor offences, which are normally dealt with by a single judge. In Britain, only 1% of criminal cases end up before juries, which rarely deal with inquests, either.

Britain is seeking to restrict juries even further.
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13109647

The jury system does not necessary means the jury’s judgement is always honoured.

When Not Guilty Can Mean More Prison Time(ABC)

a judge found that there was sufficient evidence that shots were fired during the robbery and subsequent police chase to add nearly 14 years onto White’s prison sentence, more than doubling it – even though a jury found White not guilty of most of the gun charges.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=5809692&page=1

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.