Japan Brief/FPCJ, No. 0946
August 11, 2009


First Ruling Delivered Under Newly Introduced Lay Judge System

The first trial under the newly introduced lay judge system, in which ordinary citizens participate as lay judges in criminal cases, began at the Tokyo District Court on August 3, and after three days of intense examination, a ruling was handed down on August 6, the fourth day of the trial. After the verdict had been delivered, the lay judges voluntarily participated in a press conference. One of them commented, “I was nervous having to judge someone, but I fulfilled an important social duty” (Sankei Shimbun, August 7).

Japan’s first trial under the lay judge system involved a 72-year-old man accused of stabbing a neighbor to death with a knife. Together with three professional judges, the six lay judges, selected at random from the electorate register, engaged in the deliberations and discussions, and the presiding judge pronounced a sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment on the defendant. According to reports in the major newspapers, during the deliberations the prosecutors and the defense counsel made efforts to give explanations that were easy for the lay judges to understand, such as by using photographs and illustrations and substituting simple expressions for difficult terminology, and the lay judges themselves asked the defendant questions.

Background to Introduction of the Lay Judge System

To summarize the newspaper reports, the introduction of the lay judge system was announced in June 2001 with the aim of “reflecting the sound social common sense of the public in trials.” The Lay Judge System Law was enacted in May 2004, and the system was officially launched on May 21 of this year. The system is to be used in serious criminal cases, such as homicide and robbery resulting in bodily injury. In principle six lay judges selected from the general public and three professional judges will engage in deliberations and decide whether the defendant is guilty or innocent and on the sentence.

The decision to introduce the new system was made out of reflection on postwar criminal trials in Japan that were consistently handled by professional judges. A jury system did exist in Japan for 15 years before and during World War II, but it was terminated in 1943, after which judicial decisions in criminal cases were handed down by professional judges only. This method of determining the circumstances and background of cases gained positive appraisal to some extent. At the same time, however, it was pointed out that because trials put so much emphasis on specialized precision, deliberations and rulings were difficult for ordinary citizens to understand. There were also such problems as the lengthy time required for deliberations. Furthermore, document trials that placed importance on written confessions by defendants compiled during investigations by the police or prosecutors, rather than courtroom testimony and evidence, became the standard, as a result of which the courts tended to simply confirm statements by the prosecutors. Critics argued that this led to an overemphasis on confessions and in turn was a cause of false charges being made.

Major Newspaper Editorials

Japan’s five major newspapers reported on the country’s first lay judge trial prominently every day, and on August 7, the day after the verdict had been handed down, all of them carried editorials relating to the trial. The newspapers generally gave a positive evaluation of the trial but also called for improvements to the lay judge system through constant monitoring, including revision of the secrecy obligation placed on lay judges.

The Yomiuri Shimbun editorial praised the system, saying “We welcome such changes because they will help the general public more easily understand what is discussed during trials.” But it also stated, “It is vital that people in the judicial world look for any shortcomings or problems in lay judge trials, including the one that just ended, and rectify them so the lay judge system can be improved.” Noting that the daily trial must have placed a heavy strain on the lay judges, the Yomiuri said that “the Supreme Court must do everything it can to cater to the mental condition of the lay judges” and added, “Another issue that needs careful consideration is how to select lay judges,” touching on the fact that five of the six lay judges randomly chosen this time were women.

The Asahi Shimbun editorial commented, “In this first historic trial under the citizen judge system, members of the public took part in the deliberations” and “. . . these ordinary citizens took their work seriously and used their own perceptions to understand the case. Therefore, the conclusion they reached carries much weight and must be accepted seriously.” The Asahi also remarked, “It is important for those who serve as citizen judges to describe to the rest of society their experiences, not only so the public can share them, but also to shed light on this new system.” It continued, “While citizen judges have a strict duty to keep confidentiality, we urge anyone chosen to serve in the future to also speak constructively about their experiences.”

The Mainichi Shimbun editorial positively evaluated the first lay judge trial, commenting, “Not a few people must have sensed the possibility that the fresh perceptions of ordinary citizens could change the ‘common sense’ of judicial administration and investigations.” However, it also pointed to issues in future regarding the schedule of deliberations and the obligation of secrecy. The Mainichi said, “If trials are carried out in such a short period of time, depending on the procedures, there is a danger that lay judge trials will become nothing more than a formality.” It went on, “We are most interested in how the professional judges led the discussions and how the opinions of the lay judges were reflected, but there is a danger that the obligation of secrecy placed on lay judges could become a barrier here. . . . We would like to stress once again that the people’s confidence in the system will only be gained through constant review.”

The Nikkei editorial observed, “We cannot understand the process of deliberations and reaching the conclusion only by reading a summary of the verdict. . . . If there is no way of knowing the actual state of deliberations, we cannot discuss improvements so that the lay judge system approaches a desirable form.” It called for “a revision of the Lay Judge System Law’s obligation of secrecy clause, which hinders the desire of lay judges to talk about their experiences and controls the content of their statements.”

Under the headline “First lay judge trial ruling: Wonderful fulfillment of public duty,” the Sankei editorial stated positively, “As the first lay judge trial, it was very significant and productive” and “It can be said that the aim of having a lay judge trial with the participation of ordinary citizens was achieved magnificently.” The Sankei added, “It was very meaningful that the trial was easy to understand both visually and auditorily.” It recommended, “Needless to say, the opinions and impressions of the lay judges must be utilized for the sake of the lay judge system in the future. Constant review is essential in order to consolidate the system.”

(Copyright 2009 Foreign Press Center, Japan)

*Japan Brief is an original production of the Foreign Press Center, Japan, and does not represent the views of the Government of Japan or of any other body.