EDITORIAL: Death sentence annulled

Many people, including those whose names appear on the list of candidates for citizen judges, must have braced themselves upon learning of the Supreme Court's decision Tuesday to annul the death sentence in the 2002 murder of 28-year-old woman and her 1-year-old son in Osaka.

The top court remanded the case to the Osaka District Court after concluding that it remains questionable whether the accused, the woman's father-in-law, perpetrated the crime.

The district court had handed down a life sentence in the case and the Osaka High Court sentenced the suspect to death. Both sentences were annulled.

The 52-year-old man has denied the allegations and prosecutors have no evidence that directly links him with the crime. Only pieces of circumstantial evidence imply that he might have been the culprit.

The opinions of the five justices were divided. Four raised the question that the lower courts may have misinterpreted facts while one rejected the argument, saying there was enough evidence to establish his guilt.

The majority opinions of the four are not uniform, either. Three implied his innocence while one stood by the position that the suspect may be found guilty depending on subsequent deliberations.

The ruling shows the harsh difficulty of recognizing the "facts" in the case. As a matter of procedure, only professional judges will take part in deliberating the remanded case. But citizen judges may eventually also have to deal with such difficult cases.

What is noteworthy is the majority view that in order to establish guilt in cases such as this one, "facts recognized by various pieces of evidence must include one that cannot be reasonably explained unless the accused is indeed the culprit."

The view means that no one must be convicted based on such a flimsy notion that "all facts can be explained without contradiction on the assumption that the defendant is the culprit." It also calls for careful determination of the facts. We support the idea, which follows the basic principle of criminal justice, and will watch how it will be put to use in future trials.

Partly because of the difficult way in which the idea is expressed, it will not be easy for citizen judges to clearly identify with the thinking.

Judges and other legal experts must carefully explain such rules of criminal trials to citizens in an easy-to-understand way: "As long as there is room for ordinary people to have doubts, defendants must not be found guilty," or "Proof that is beyond a reasonable doubt is needed."

While we should always "revere" discerning facts, we must not develop "fear" of taking part in trials. For that, it is important that experts provide firm support. This is the basis for running the citizen judge system smoothly.

Investigative authorities also have a grave responsibility. Also in this case, the court pointed out flaws in gathering and appraising material evidence. Whether police officers investigating the case used violence against the suspect is also disputed.

Such confusion could have been avoided if the investigation had been handled appropriately and proper records of the questioning procedure had been kept.

At a time when the judicial system is at a crossroads, we, more than ever, need to deepen discussions on what trials are and what it means to seek criminal responsibility.

--The Asahi Shimbun, April 29