Columns that reveal the world
- Getting up close and personal with the researchers -

What would you do if you suddenly received a summons to be a "jury judge" at home one day? Many people would be reluctant to go, giving various reasons such as "I have work to do, what should I do?" or "I don't want to go because I'm busy at home."

The "lay judge system" began on May 21, 2009 as a system in which "lay judges" selected from among the public participate in criminal trials. By having lay judges selected from a variety of ages and professions participate in trials that had previously been conducted only by judges, it has become possible to conduct trials that incorporate the full range of public opinion like never before. Three years have passed since the system came into effect, and many criminal cases have been tried in lay judge trials, with judges, prosecutors, and lawyers expressing a variety of opinions. I personally believe that the lay judge system should be improved and that more public should participate in trials.

Originally, I thought that the "jury system" should be implemented in Japanese trials. Before the war, from 1928, Japan also had "jury trials" for 15 years, and so there is a law called the "jury law" lying dormant in Japan. Some lawyers believe that if this dormant jury law is revived and adapted to a modern style, it can still be used today, and the "Court Law" that defines the court system states that "there is no obstacle to establishing a jury system for criminal cases," so jury trials can be revived at any time. Despite this background, from the end of the war until recent years, trials in Japan were conducted only by professional judges. The more I studied law, the more I felt the need for jury trials, and I came across a group called the "Society for Considering Jury Trials," and worked with them to see if it was possible to hold trials in which the public could participate.

At that time, in 1999, reform of the judicial system began, and legal experts and members of the courts actively raised their voices, saying, "If we do not expand the national base of the judiciary, the future of the judiciary will not be viable." After much trial and error, the "lay judge system" was established, realizing trials in which citizens could participate, and has continued to this day. First of all, I would like you to know about this "lay judge system."

First, let me explain the process of how to become a juror and what you will be doing as a juror.

"Jurors" are selected at random by lottery from voters aged 20 or over (those who are registered on the electoral roll for House of Representatives members). They are selected from voters living within the jurisdiction of each district court, so no one can be selected as a juror for a court outside of their place of residence. Being a juror is mandatory by law, with the aim of "having a broad range of citizens participate and have their good sense reflected in trials." However, to avoid placing a large burden on the public, people can request to decline if there are unavoidable reasons, such as old age or a family member needing care.

Please see the table below. After being selected as a juror candidate, there are three main steps. Six jurors are selected for each case, and 2 to 3 substitute jurors are selected if necessary.

The six selected jurors (plus alternate jurors) will form a team with three other judges and proceed with the trial. In a "lay judge trial," the first hearings are held for criminal cases involving serious crimes, such as "murder," "robbery resulting in death or injury" where a robbery results in death or injury, "kidnapping for ransom," and "dangerous driving resulting in death" where reckless driving causes an accident resulting in the death of someone.

Before entering the courtroom, jurors receive an explanation of their duties and confidentiality obligations from the presiding judge, then take an oath before entering the courtroom.
In the courtroom, a trial proceeds as follows: During the trial, the judge and lay judges enter the deliberation room several times to repeatedly discuss the opinions of the prosecutor and defense attorney and the evidence, and then decide on a verdict. If they cannot reach a consensus after exhaustive discussion, the conclusion is decided by majority vote. At that time, unless one judge agrees, the resolution cannot be passed.

Following on from the above, "lay judge trials" are currently underway. Some trials last three days, while others can last up to 100 days, placing a significant burden on citizens selected as lay judges. While they are paid a daily allowance of up to 10,000 yen per day during the days they are in custody in court, they are still taking time off work to participate, which will likely have an impact on their work. I have also heard that some people become mentally exhausted after witnessing the devastation of tragic crimes and participating in the verdicts of serious cases.

However, with the introduction of the lay judge system, trials that were previously conducted by judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys are beginning to change. By including ordinary citizens in trials that were previously conducted only by experts, it has become possible to discover discrepancies between what was previously taken for granted in court and common sense, and by listening to a variety of opinions, it has become possible to gain a deeper understanding of the meaning of the case, bringing a breath of fresh air to the courtroom.

It can be said that there have been two major changes since the introduction of the lay judge system. The first is that "sentences higher than those requested are being handed down." Up until now, there was a table of "sentencing standards" based on precedent and accumulated experience, and sentences were decided based on the idea that "in a case like this, this level of sentencing would be appropriate." However, it seems that it has become clear that this is not appropriate in the eyes of the general public. Judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers are all surprised when they see sentences higher than those requested, and some defense lawyers in particular are opposed to the lay judge system.

Another thing is that there has been an increase in "suspended sentences with probation." This can be said to impose a heavier burden on the defendant than a simple "suspended sentence." With a suspended sentence, if a certain period of time passes while the defendant is living a normal life without being incarcerated, he or she will no longer be required to carry out the sentence. However, this raises concerns about whether the defendant will be able to lead a healthy life, and whether they will reoffend if they return to a normal life. As such, many jurors believe that it would be best for the defendant to be assigned a probation officer or probation officer to provide guidance on how to live.

Among the judges, prosecutors, lawyers and other professionals involved in trials, some are positive and some are negative about the two changes mentioned above. Judges I know and many other judges say that it's good that the lay judge system has started. We must not stop this new wind.

I believe that having more citizens participate in trials as lay judges in the future will bring about change in trials and the judicial system. To achieve this, I believe it is necessary to solve the issues that have come to light over the past three years and create a better lay judge system.

One issue is mental care. Trials are a huge mental burden for ordinary people. So when the lay judge system was created, we asked for mental care through counseling, but I think the current situation is still not enough. Some people worry for a long time after the trial whether the verdict they participated in was really good, and some people experience flashbacks some time after seeing the horrific scenes of the crime. It is important that people can receive counseling at any time if they wish.

There is also the issue of confidentiality. Although interactions within the courtroom are open, jurors are anonymous, and conversations within the deliberation room, especially who expressed what opinion and the breakdown of the verdict reached by majority vote, are not to be made public. The actual implementation has become much more lenient than feared before the law was enacted, but having secrets can be a big mental burden, and many people will hesitate to serve as jurors. I would like to speak out so that we can have more open discussions.

In addition to the above, various other issues are coming to light, such as whether a majority vote is sufficient when imposing the death penalty. Three years have passed since the lay judge system was implemented, and now is the time to consider revising it. Should we shrink or expand it? Of course, we will raise our voices in favor of expansion. We want people to know that the "lay judge system" has improved trials in Japan and that it has become an important part of trials, and that when they are called to be lay judges, they should definitely participate in trials. We want people to share their experiences at the citizen level, and we want to create a society in which citizens actively participate in trials.

(Published in 2013)