Those of you who played the 4th Ace Attorney (逆転è£åˆ¤) game would be aware of the new jury system being implemented in Japan, first proposed in cabinet review committee in 2001 and subsequently passed into law in 2004.
After five years of policy fine-tuning and mock trials, Japan held its first post-war jury trial on Monday. The system consists of a hybrid of six layman jury members (è£åˆ¤å“¡) and three professional judges (è£åˆ¤å®˜) and is reserved for serious crimes such as murder. A majority opinion has to be supported by at least one of the three judges in order to stand.
I am on the fence about this whole “democratizing the justice system” movement. The idea that judges in ivory towers often do not possess the necessary life experiences to understand the social context of the crimes they judge has some merits. On the other hand, it’s hard to believe that a handful of randomly selected voters possess the technical expertise to understand the law and how it should be applied.
For example, in a case that involves minority rights, there is little guarantee that individual members of the jury understand the implications of such abstract issues on society at large, hence risking a judgement that stems from narrow first-hand experiences. A judge is also liable to make the same mistakes, but the very fact that he/she is (supposed to be) a learnt legal scholar with a wealth of relevant experience mitigates the risk of unilateralism greatly. That is to say, in a court of law, the legal experience of a judge is likely to present more relevance to any given case than the range of expertises possessed by the jury, an important point that should not be overlooked in the structuring of the system.
As with most things in life, the most important rule of thumb is of course to seek the right balance between the two so as to avoid dogmatic inflexible rulings that have no grounding in reality and at the same time prevent the law from being completely reinterpreted with each new batch of juries. In that regard, I’m not sure if letting the jury decide the punishment is such a good idea. The fine line between justice and retribution is further blurred when professional judges are replaced by the everyman who is expected to bring personal experiences into play. It’s good that the judges can veto blatant abuses in Japan’s case, but it does not completely wash away the lingering stench of mob justice.
And while US opinions are almost universally favourable, the fact that the system is somewhat controversial in Japan also indicates a difference in mindset when it comes to legal justice. Many English-speaking commentators see this as an issue of democracy, when it really should not be. At the end of the day, the value of any jury system should be the varied perspectives and expertises it brings to a trial, and not some abstract idea of democracy. A small selected group of pre-screened voters is no more representative of society at large than a group of judges. If anything, general elections of judges would make more sense if democracy were the ultimate intend, which incidentally is a really bad idea if elected politicians are anything to go by. (Then again, the lack of judicial independence from the political organs of government is already an existing situation in many countries.)
Personally, I would prefer to see public oversight in the judicial system take the form of an auditing role instead. Oh well, as long as it works out.
And at the very least, this has very real implications on future Ace Attorney games. Will the bald and confused judge still be there? Or will he be sidelined by a group of nervous salarymen and loud gyarus? (Hurray for stereotypes.)
P.S. Yes, I’ve been playing Ace Attorney Investigations: Miles Edgeworth.
I had this long thing written up but it was lost. so I’ll keep it short the second time.
1. Democracy has its place in a legal system. The question is how to add to it without making the cogworks of a legal system slow down (by much).
2. You are kind of right, if I read you, that “it doesn’t really matter” in the end. But how you came to it is wrong. For starters Judges are NO WAY representative of society at large. If you want that kind of a thing in the legal system, a lay jury is necessary. But of course with that comes with baggage too, as lay juries generally kinda suck at giving good decisions, and the ball (by design) falls in the hand of the attorneys more so than a judge-rule system where the judge knows much better.
3. But that can all be accounted for, and since in America lawsuits are so systematic, it’s really no big deal. Japan just has a different take to lawsuits so they take it much more seriously.
In this case, it really isn’t democratization. It’s along those lines, sure, but it’s more about, as it’s put here, a jury of “peers”.
In short, judges should be arbitrators, and not a different class of person, in terms of decision-making power and in the complexity of law. Even in the US, the power afforded to judges makes them a different class of person in their courtrooms. The jury is a failsafe. Sure, some other countries do OK without them most of the time, but I’m sure I don’t have to dig up examples where the line has been stepped over.
The real difference in mindset here is that, historically (if not in current practice), people in the US tend to prefer thwarting the possibility of tyranny to better efficiency.
As Kyuusai says, the US judicial system was set up primarily to thwart tyranny and the spectre of the British judicial system which did not look kindly on the sorts of folks who left for the New World. At least to some extent it’s worked (we don’t have the stereotype of the sneering judge giving the death sentence for every crime), though the bit about a jury of “peers” is very hit-or-miss. One of the big problems with the US judicial system is how jurors are selected. From a pool of candidates each juror can come up with some reason why they cannot serve, and those who are incapable of making adequate excuses are then filtered by the two lawyers to remove anyone who may side with their opposition. Are those who survive these three culling processes really representative of our “peers”? Minorities in particular will highlight that juries are predominantly white, which in turn affects rulings where racial profiling or prejudice were involved. Schooling and parenting are easily turned to valid excuses. And while every citizen shall be summoned for jury duty, there’s nothing that ensures that every citizen shall actually serve on a jury.
Pingback: Jury Trial in Japan – Ramblings of DarkMirage « Betsuni
Given the very nature of the jury system, it is inevitable that in a predominantly-white society, a random sample of the population will give you a predominantly-white jury. Of course whether this proportion is still far in excess of the actual proportion of whites in the population (or, more pertinently, whether the minorities are in fact under-represented) is another issue altogether. Which is the crux of this whole matter, really – as you mentioned, jury duty entails a certain amount of risk, which many are unwilling to bear (much a member of a minority!) The risk of suffering reprecussions is indeed a thorny issue with the jury system.
Seems americans really like their jury system…
Personaly i’m glad we don’t have one. I wouldn’t exactly want to be judged (though considering they only deal with murder and stuff i don’t think i’ll get into that situtation. Though it’s espacially bad if the accusations are false…)
But more than that, i have the general opinion that people are stupid. I don’t want them to judge. Easy as that.
I imagine most jurys to be like the one in “12 angry men” without the architect…
Tangentially related, mangas about the lay judge system:
http://neojaponisme.com/2009/03/24/trial-by-cartoon/
Hi..
On a side note completely unrelated, I just saw posters of the 2009 Singapore Toys and Comics Convention..
I just wanted to know anyone going?
Leslie
Wait, wait, what? Japan hasn’t had a jury system for the last 50 years? When I first read the article I thought Japan had “reformed” its jury system but now I’ve understood the sentence “Japan will have its first post-war jury trial on Monday….”
I thought trial-by-jury came hand-in-hand with democracy. Weird. But I think trial-by-jury is a great idea! I’d hate to be tried by a group of judges because they could be influenced by powerful outside interests and/or be bribed. That happens a lot in China and India.
The whole point of the jury system is so that puppet judges don’t go around condemning anyone the government doesn’t like. I don’t know about this “democratizing the justice system”; the judicial department is only supposed to INTERPRET the law. In the best case scenario, you’ll only need one judge for that. Democracy is more up to congress/parliament that MAKE the laws.
I found this quip the most interesting issue: “Polls taken in Japan suggest that, similar to other developed jury systems, 70 percent of the population of Japan is reluctant to serve as a juror.[6] The Japanese culture has been introduced to mock trials over recent years to overcome their reluctance to express public opinion, debate and defy authority figures.[2]”