The Japanese Mixed Jury System: Saiban-In Seido - Report Example

Running head: THE JAPANESE MIXED JURY SYSTEM THE JAPANESE MIXED JURY SYSTEM: SAIBAN-IN SEIDO Japan has been observed to be adopting and borrowing the western customs and incorporating them to its own social and traditional traditions. It is leaving behind its traditional customs and using the western which is more developed and better. These customs include law and governance and recently they have adopted the western judicial tradition which is the system of the jury. The quasi- jury system also referred to as the saiban-in, is a system that came into the law of Japan in 2004 but began its first ever official trials in 2009. This system involves lay jurors who participate in joint debate with other professional judges so as to come up with the sentence and capability of the criminal defendants in the severe cases of criminal activities. Traditionally, the modern Japanese Judiciary has been regarded by the academia and public as being insulated from elitist, public and unfriendly to criminal defendants who normally face a higher than ninety nine percent conviction Schmalleger (2012). This is normally due to the intense prosecutorial proceeding coupled with the high rate of pretrial confessions. However, the mixed jury system is normally designed to democratize the criminal legal process. This method or rather system aims at eliminating the domination of the judicial system on the cases by using their influence to pressure the lay people into accepting the court’s opinions. This system is also designed in a way so as to maintain predictable and consistent decisions on the sentences and verdicts and making sure that those decisions reflect and are not entirely determined by the Justice of the Supreme Court Linnan (2012). This system also looks at improving the jury system and providing a good opportunity for laypersons to participate in the decisions of the court meaningfully without sacrificing or rather affecting the predictability, elite notions of justice and consistency. It also looks at trying to allow justice officials to pursue policies which are focused on rehabilitating the offenders Tanenhaus (2008). . This project looks to focus on whether this system has encouraged a more democratic system within the Court system by promoting fairer trials and better justice system compared to the US. However, there have been a number of people who have been defending the traditional system on different grounds. They argue that the Japanese Judicial system is one of the most sophisticated and consistent in the whole world Kaplan and Martil (2006). They further ague that the Judges in this system are esteemed, politically independent, professional and honest compared to those in other countries. The high conviction rate in Japan is praised and advocated for on grounds that only the guilty defendants are convicted. Regardless of all these views, it goes without doubt that a fairer judicial system was needed. The saiban-in system adopted from the west has brought a fair trial to the defendants. It is very important to note that the modern lay jury system does not resemble that of the US despite the fact that it has borrowed a lot from there. The three main pillars of the Justice system in Japan have come out strongly in support of this new system. The three pillars are the Supreme Court, the Department of justice and the Japanese Federal of Bar Associations. They have actively publicized this new system to the citizens by employing all the possible advertising platforms. The main question at hand is whether this new system has brought fairer trials in Japan and whether it has been more effective than in the US. Comparing these two systems and the modifications that have been put in place, we will be able to come up with a clear answer of the same. In the United States for example, this system is being undermined on grounds that it gives the lay judges too much power that influence the decision of the court. This is because the community representative has grown to be a marginalized player in the legal system. In Japan, the system is however upheld and consistent. The challenging and overturning of the determinations of the lay jury undermines the confidence in the jury system Schmalleger (2012). This also frustrates the public belief and trust in the value of the justice system and the lay jury. There has been a good cooperation between the judiciary and the lay Jury in Japan which has brought a new form of fairer trials and a better justice system. Japan has customized its judicial procedures by shortening the trial period so as to work better and accommodate this new system. This system has become friendlier, reliable and faster. There has also been an elimination of distractions for the lay judges. The professional judges are not to marginalize the lay judges and should consider them as teammates when it comes to making court decisions. The professional judges should as well politely expound on the applied laws, hold deliberations and give the lay judges opportunity to express their opinions for a better relationship and smooth flow of time. Transparency is another feature of this system that has improved the judicial system in Japan. This is normally acquired by obtaining a detailed record of the deliberations of the lay jury. The mass media normally has the access to these finds making this transparency much better. There has also been an increased protection for these judges. This motivates the judges into working hard and free knowing that there are no dangers when they are serving the community Linnan (2012). This system has improved the citizen or rather public participation in the judicial system. This has fostered public confidence and trust in the system. There has been a mass conviction, education and awareness campaign of this system n the country which has seen a lot of improvement and incorporation into the society. The private sector has also cooperated with this system and improved it. Organizations have created a workplace environment that has removed all disincentives to participate in this system. It is important to note that the lay jury will need time form the workplace so as to attend to their judicial role. Employers therefore ought to encourage and support them Schmalleger (2012). In summary, this new judicial system has enhanced democracy and brought an all positive change in the society Tanenhaus (2008). It has also enabled the country to achieve the aims of its legal reforms. By adopting this system, the Japanese are better off in that they have studied how the system has worked in the US. They know the proper procedures and the reforms to make on the system so as to make it much better and helpful. It is however important for Japan to ensure that it does not only use this quasi-jury system in critical cases only but in all cases. This will improve the overall justice system and ensure that all cases are well represented in a fair manner Tanenhaus (2008). Since the inception of this system in Japan, the turn out of people called in for potential selection judges has been over 78% which is highest compared to other countries. The system has over the years been criticized on the lack of competence, subjectivity to passion and lack of predictability. The critics claim that the jurors who are brought n are susceptible to emotions and their personal beliefs. Others have said that it is costly to train all the lay jurors as well as pay them and is a misuse of national resources Linnan (2012). All these criticisms have been weighed and looked into very carefully by Japanese judges as well as the general judicial system. They have been improved and only the best practices have been borrowed from the west. The Japanese society as a whole has benefited greatly form these civil jury trials in many ways and levels. From a political angle, the citizens are able to connect to and comprehend the democratic institutions. A lot of weight is given to these jurors who have proven to be very capable decision makers. Overturning of these particular jury verdicts is also very rare in Japan unlike in the west Kaplan and Martil (2006). It is always said that two heads are better than one. The involvement of the public in the case adds more common sense into the dispute and simplifies it. The citizens will be in a position to air their views as well as take part in the lawsuits that affect the society to al large extent. References Kaplan, M. F., & Martín, A. M. (2006). Understanding world jury systems through social psychological research. New York: Psychology Press. Linnan, D. K. (2012). Legitimacy, legal development, and change: law and modernization reconsidered. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate. Schmalleger, F. (2012). Criminal justice: a brief introduction (9th ed.). Boston: Prentice Hall. Tanenhaus, D. S. (2008). Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA. Read More