EDITORIAL: Death for juvenile crime

The second death sentence under the lay judge system was handed down last week at the Sendai District Court against a man accused of murdering two people and seriously injuring another. The defendant was a juvenile of 18 years and seven months when he committed the crimes.

The man broke into the house of a former girlfriend and killed the girl's elder sister and a friend, and inflicted severe injuries on another person. It was no doubt a heinous act. But the Juvenile Law and international law prohibit punishing a person younger than 18 with the death penalty.

Because the defendant's age at the time of the crimes was close to that threshold, many experts expected a life sentence based on past court rulings for similar cases.

The ruling is of immeasurable importance. But courts cannot be too cautious in handing down this penalty. It would be meaningful to hear the high court judgement of the case.

As for the defendant's age at the time of the crimes, which was the key issue, the ruling said, "it doesn't qualify as the decisive factor that demands avoiding the death penalty and should be regarded as only one of the factors to be considered for judgment based on a comprehensive perspective."

This is an exact quotation of a passage in the Supreme Court ruling on the 1999 murders of a mother and her infant child by an 18-year-old boy in Hikari, Yamaguchi Prefecture. The top court reversed and remanded the high court ruling, which sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment.

The remarks by lay judges at a press conference held after the district court decision last week indicated that they experienced serious psychological strain and conflict.

We wonder what kind of discussions and arguments they had during the process of making the decision. Was it difficult to write the judgment document in a way that reflects these exchanges?

One of the aims of the "saiban-in" lay judge system is to ensure that the assessment of culpability and fact-finding processes in trials reflect the sensibility of ordinary citizens.

Lay judges could serve the public interest by expressing their thoughts and feelings in their own words for society as a whole. These revelations could provide guidance for other lay judges and help improve the system, while giving the public an opportunity to deepen their own thoughts about crime and punishment.

This task may be demanding for citizen judges, who must carry out their duties in a limited time. But explaining the reasons for a court decision is a task that can only be done by judges who heard the case.

Experts pointed out that citizen judges would face tough challenges in handling juvenile cases. A juvenile in the process of personality development has the potential to change dramatically, depending upon education and environment.

How can ordinary citizens assess this potential in a juvenile? How can such efforts be compatible with the need to shorten the trial process? How can the knowledge of experts at juvenile corrective institutions and family courts be used more effectively?

Professional judges, defense lawyers and prosecutors understand well the judicial implications of the notion that the Juvenile Law is designed to protect the healthy development of young people. But lay judges don't share this understanding.

The lay judge system requires explanations about the law and efforts to prove cases that ordinary citizens can clearly understand. There have so far been only a dozen or so juvenile cases handled by lay judges. It's still too early to discuss trends in rulings or overhauling the system itself.

As the number of juvenile cases heard by lay judges grows, problems and issues will be pointed out by people in various positions from their own viewpoints. It is important for the judicial community to consider such problems and seek solutions.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Nov. 27