EDITORIAL: Japan's citizen judges

The citizen judge system will enter its third year this year. Up to now, more than 1,500 rulings have been handed down. In particular, from last fall to the end of the year, many trials that attracted public attention were held.

They included cases in which prosecutors asked for the death sentence. In one instance, judges were required to take different factors into consideration because the defendant was a minor at the time of the crime and the prosecution's case hinged on circumstantial evidence.

We remember clearly that one of the cases in which the death sentence was sought was an example of the latter category and the defendant was found not guilty.

There were also cases in which defendants lacked the ability to understand right from wrong.

One case had to be divided into sections and deliberated separately by different citizen judges because the contents of the indictment were diversified.

With regard to individual judgments, people must have had various thoughts such as support, opposition, compassion and doubt.

However, we can see from the news conferences citizen judges gave after the trials that each understood his or her responsibility, gave a great deal of thought and overcame the crucial test.

What about public opinion? According to a survey by The Asahi Shimbun in December, nearly half of respondents said the introduction of the system was good. As for public trust toward trials, 34 percent said it rose, 9 percent said it fell, and 48 percent said it remained unchanged.

Although the survey methods are different, in December 2008, before the establishment of the law, those who supported the system made up a minority accounting for 34 percent. Twenty-nine percent said trust would rise, while 10 percent said it would go down.

Although there are still anxieties and confusion, we believe most people appreciate the work of our citizen judges.

In some societies, experts and everyday citizens work together to deepen ideas about crime, punishment and rehabilitation while in others, such matters are entirely left to experts.

Through the Diet, we chose a path that would lead to experts and lay judges working side by side even though it would be difficult. Our experiences over the last year and a half are about to prove that we made the right choice and have the ability to meet that end.

Of course, we must not simply rejoice that the system is working well. Isn't there a way to reduce the psychological and physical burden on the citizen judges?

Conversely, as a result of giving too much consideration to citizen judges, could we be neglecting important factors such as guaranteeing defendants' rights? We need to carefully watch our step as we move forward.

One of the things we are concerned about is the way prosecutors deliver opening statements at the start of trials. In quite a few cases, the statements incorporate much of the evidence to be later examined in court, such as statements by concerned parties.

It is not uncommon to develop counterarguments that anticipate possible arguments to be made by the defense. Such statements sound almost like closing arguments that are made at the end of deliberations to sort out the prosecution's claim.

But they confuse citizen judges, and could unjustly influence their verdicts. It is an important role of legal experts to set a proper environment for debate. We call on them to re-examine the current situation.

It is important for judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers to accumulate experience and develop skills and confidence. However, as a result, they can become so accustomed to their own way of handling things that courts become places run by experts for experts.

We must prevent that from happening.

Like citizen judges, they need to always keep a fresh eye while squarely facing cases.

This is a problem that needs to be focused on as the citizen judge system enters its third year.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Jan. 6