Juries in the Japanese Legal System

Reviewed by: Juries in the Japanese Legal System: The Continuing Struggle for Citizen Participation and Democracy by Dimitri Vanoverbeke, and: Japan and Civil Jury Trials: The Convergence of Forces by Matthew J. Wilson, Hiroshi Fukurai, and Takashi Maruta Daniel H. Foote (bio) Juries in the Japanese Legal System: The Continuing Struggle for Citizen Participation and Democracy. By Dimitri Vanoverbeke. Routledge, London, 2015. 222 pages. $168.00. Japan and Civil Jury Trials: The Convergence of Forces. By Matthew J. Wilson, Hiroshi Fukurai, and Takashi Maruta. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, 2015. vi, 193 pages. $110.00. Japan’s so-called jury system—a lay participation system for serious criminal cases, with mixed panels of professional judges and “lay assessors” (saiban’in, hereafter “lay judges”)—has been in operation since mid-2009. As the works reviewed here reflect, one can trace the roots back decades or longer. The direct genesis of the current system, however, lies in the debates and recommendations of the Justice System Reform Council (JSRC), which began meeting in 1999 and issued its final report in June 2001. Between then and 2004, concrete details of the system were determined and implementing legislation enacted; and an additional five-year period was set aside for preparations. Ever since the JSRC began its deliberations over lay participation, commentary has abounded. Countless books and articles in Japanese have debated the pros and cons of lay participation in general, suitability for Japan, merits of all-citizen juries versus mixed panels, and numerous other aspects of the system. As called for by the original legislation, three years after the system took effect, the Supreme Court of Japan undertook a comprehensive evaluation. In addition to the resulting report, numerous books and articles in Japanese have sought to assess the impact on the justice system, on the lay judges themselves, and on the general public and society. The attention has by no means been limited to Japan. Korea, Taiwan, and other nations have studied the Japanese model in planning their own lay participation systems. And there has been a steady stream of articles about Japan’s “jury” system in the United States, Europe, and Asia. To my knowledge, however, these are the first books in English to undertake a comprehensive examination of lay participation in Japan. Both books make a substantial contribution to the literature. Not surprisingly, they overlap in certain respects. Their main focus is different, however, and their respective assessments of the new system contrast sharply, providing a striking reminder of how widely views diverge. The plural “juries” in the title of the first work considered here, Juries in the Japanese Legal System, bears note. Dimitri Vanoverbeke, professor of Japanese studies at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, places [End Page 230] the current system in historical context through a detailed examination of earlier forays into lay participation in Japan. These include accounts regarding a few actual jury trials and proposals for institution of a broader jury system in Meiji Japan, under French influence; of what Vanoverbeke refers to as “the Taisho jury system,” which was introduced by a law enacted in 1923 and which was in operation from 1928 through 1943; and of the experience with trial by jury in Okinawa in the 1960s. Vanoverbeke also provides detailed examinations of why the postwar occupation did not insist on reinstating the jury, of forces leading to the JSRC’s call for lay participation, and of deliberations by the JSRC and successor Investigative Commission that developed concrete plans for the new system. These accounts reflect extensive research in a wide range of sources. If anything, some readers may find parts of the historical accounts overly detailed. Although, on occasion, I wish insights from the historical record had been better incorporated into the discussion of the new system, I find many aspects of the history fascinating. To offer a few examples: If the source were not given, one might well think the comments about the unsuitability of the jury for Japan made by Kume Kunitake in 1878, following a mission to France during which he had observed a jury trial, had been made recently by one of the opponents of lay participation: “[D]ifficulties might arise if

Democracy · Economic Justice · Jury · Legislation · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Jury Decision Making Processes · Law