Japan relaunches trials by jury

[Ronin4hire]

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Japan relaunches trials by jury

Japan has opened its first jury trial for more than 60 years, after making changes to a legal system which has often been criticised as unfair.

Six jurors are working with three judges to decide a verdict in the case of 72-year-old Katsuyoshi Fujii, who has been charged with murder.

Until now Japanese trials have been decided by a panel of judges.

Critics say the old system was too slow, lacked transparency and was out of touch.

But some legal experts remain concerned that randomly selected members of the public are not fit to decide the outcome of serious crime cases, especially those involving a possible death penalty. (Article continues in link)

Interesting stuff.

To be honest I don't know much about criminal law (either Japanese or in my own country where jury trials are the norm) so can't really comment.

But just thought I'd throw it out here on this forum seeing as it's Japan related and I'd be interested in what some of you say who do know about criminal law.

I suppose my biggest question is why trial by jury is considered a better system? I'd prefer legal professionals to deliberate over a verdict rather than random people off the street.. but again... I don't really know what I'm talking about regarding this issue.

[Sinestra]

I see why the Japanese chose the old system and kept in place for so long "if its not broken dont fix it" but it seem some think it is broken or at least limping. However being judged by ones peers is considered essential in a democracy. I think its a good idea for Japan to tweek their legal system if THEY feel its unfair or not working. Nothing wrong with trying something new especially if it works more smoothly than the previous system. Then again i feel some of the legal experts are right. Most people dont have the stones to sit in on a murder trial where you possibly have to decide if someone lives or dies for their crimes.

Lets see how this plays out. Is the general public even interested in changing the system? does it affect them that much or are the complaints about unfairness mainly from foreigners and foreign countries?


Ronin4hire in response to your question "I suppose my biggest question is why trial by jury is considered a better system?"

I believe because some feel trial by jury is less prone to interference such as bribes and intimidation. Which is why here in the US when a jury is selected for a high profile case they are basically removed from society. They dont go home and cant talk to anyone about the case they stay in special hotels together with no visitors. This way they are not influenced by outside elements. Only the evidence thats presented in court and i think they dont even have tv.

When you have say a panel of 3 judges who makes the finally ruling. Its easier to bribe them or sway their opinion with intimidation. A judge is suppose to be impartial but thats impossible for us meer humans even a jury has their own preconceptions or biases but when you put several people on a jury it kind of evens out. Each system has their own advantages and disadvantages.

[Ronin4hire]

Thanks Sinestra for answering my question

Yeah I see your point as to the advantages of a jury sytem over a judge system.

[Tenchu]

But some legal experts remain concerned that randomly selected members of the public are not fit to decide the outcome of serious crime cases, especially those involving a possible death penalty. (Article continues in link)

I'd have to agree with them. Who'd want some random to decide the fate of your life? especially if you're a wrongly accused innocent.

[Sinestra]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

I'd have to agree with them. Who'd want some random to decide the fate of your life? especially if you're a wrongly accused innocent.

Thats the part i agreed on too Tenchu. Its kind of like a double edged sword let a complete moron decide your fate or let a judge or who can bought off with gifts and promises of lucrative investments from other lawyers decide your fate. Neither one sounds very endearing to me.

[fluffy0000]

Citizen judge system Japan 2009'
pushing for the "Saiban-in" or citizen judge system.

Japan abolished its jury system during World War II, and cases have been decided by a panel of professional judges.

The current system gives prosecutors extensive powers, but defense attorneys argue those powers go to far too far. Prosecutors are allowed to detain and interrogate a suspect for 23 days, without a defense attorney present, and force them to make written statements and confessions. Nearly 100 percent of indictments resulted in convictions.

Legal process / trail by jury applies only to felony cases

Six jurors will now decide cases involving serious, violent crimes. Three professional judges will work with them to guide them through the legal process. For example, there will be six jurors and three judges meeting together to come to a majority vote decision, and verdicts are expected to be reached within just a few days.

In the Aftermanth of this particular crime/ prompted move to jury + 3 judge
system for felony cases. -Jul 28, 2009 ... Toshikazu Sugaya (62) who has been released from Chiba Prison in Tokyo after miscarraige of justice,....

That criticism has grown louder since a 62-year-old man who was wrongly convicted was released from prison last month. Toshikazu Sugaya served 17 years behind bars for the murder of a young girl. He said prosecutors forced him to confess to a crime he did not commit. He was freed after a new test revealed his DNA did not match that on the victim's body.

[TalnSG]

Originally Posted by fluffy0000

That criticism has grown louder since a 62-year-old man who was wrongly convicted was released from prison last month. Toshikazu Sugaya served 17 years behind bars for the murder of a young girl. He said prosecutors forced him to confess to a crime he did not commit. He was freed after a new test revealed his DNA did not match that on the victim's body.

well they may find that a jury trail doesn't solve this either. A current project in the U.S. has been working to overturn these exact types of convictions and there have been 20 so far. Without the DNA evidence they were all convicted by a jury of 12.

The one flaw many Americans see with the "jury by peers" concept is that the jury members are rarely truly peers from the community. We haven't come up with anything better, though. Unfortunately I have sat on more than one jury with at least one of the aforementioned morons. Luckily for the defendant, the majority finally overruled the dunce in our midst. But sometimes it doesn't work that way.

[fluffy0000]

In the US you're refer:
The Innocence Project
Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld co-founded and are Co-Directors of the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.
As of May 28, 2008, 217 wrongful convictions have been overturned by DNA testing thanks to the Project and other legal organizations.

In Japan
The lawyers for Toshikazu Sugaya did not argue just on the exclusion of their clients DNA evidence - 17 years ago when Mr. Sugaya was convicted. His lawyers pointed out the absurdity of Japans justice system having a nearly 100 percent of indictments resulted in convictions.

[ACW]

Originally Posted by TalnSG

well they may find that a jury trail doesn't solve this either. A current project in the U.S. has been working to overturn these exact types of convictions and there have been 20 so far. Without the DNA evidence they were all convicted by a jury of 12.

The one flaw many Americans see with the "jury by peers" concept is that the jury members are rarely truly peers from the community. We haven't come up with anything better, though. Unfortunately I have sat on more than one jury with at least one of the aforementioned morons. Luckily for the defendant, the majority finally overruled the dunce in our midst. But sometimes it doesn't work that way.

I thought the court screened jurers before trial to eliminate personal biases to the case. Does that happen?

[Sinestra]

Originally Posted by ACW

I thought the court screened jurers before trial to eliminate personal biases to the case. Does that happen?

They do but the point is no system is 100% accurate. However what would you think if a system had a near 100% conviction rate? fluffy0000 post says it all thats one of the reasons why they are changing the system.