EDITORIAL: Lay judge system turns 1

On Friday, it will be exactly one year since the introduction of the citizen judge system. The Supreme Court's status report up to March published last month shows the system has gotten off to a smooth start.

However, most of the cases tried so far involved defendants who did not challenge the charges. The system has yet to be really tested by cases involving complex chains of evidence or demands by prosecutors for the death sentence.

Delays in court proceedings have emerged as another problem. Only a small proportion of the cases on the docket have been actually heard in court.

All legal professionals must keep working hard to overcome the present and future challenges, but lawyers in particular may hold the key to improving the situation.

According to a Supreme Court survey and Asahi Shimbun interviews of citizens who have served as lay judges, lawyers are rated below prosecutors and judges in their ability to explain a case succinctly.

Unlike prosecutors, who have the benefit of organizational resources when they work on a case, lawyers by and large are independent operators who have to go it alone.

Concerns over how defense lawyers can compete on an equal footing with prosecutors are nothing new. However, lawyers are professionals, and they are expected to fall back on their professionalism to overcome the disadvantage.

The lawyers need to share their experiences and exchange ideas to acquire expertise and hone their skills. We hope bar associations will stand behind their member attorneys more staunchly than ever.

At the same time, the government must also do its share by bolstering the public defender system, for instance.

Over the past year, the citizen judge system has been operating with full consideration for the personal circumstances and the readiness of citizens called up for service. This approach should continue.

But no trial should ever be conducted in disregard of the rights of defendants. The Supreme Court's status report cited the example of some lay judges who, in their impatience to learn the facts, questioned the defendant against the rules of trial.

Under the rules, the facts should be discerned from the arguments presented by the prosecution and the defense. Professional judges are responsible for educating lay judges on their roles under the law.

Although some problems existed, we believe the great majority of citizen judges are decent people with sound judgment, based on their conduct in court and their answers to questionnaires.

They tried to put themselves in the victims' shoes, sometimes wept when the defendants explained what had driven them to crime, showed concern for how the convicted would be treated in prison, and wished for their social rehabilitation.

Ordinary citizens have become conscious of issues that were once only the domain of legal experts. Their deepening awareness will lay the foundation of a society that will support crime victims, encourage social rehabilitation by former criminals and promote efforts by communities to prevent crimes.

When citizens' participation in the judicial process was decided upon nine years ago, we called for courts to become places where members of society think about what sort of society they want, which in turn should allow our democracy to evolve and mature.

The citizen judge system is still in its infancy, and we are sure we will face new situations over which questions and criticisms will arise. While each problem should obviously be corrected, we will continue watching the system objectively.

--The Asahi Shimbun, May 19