Involving citizens in the criminal justice system

TOKYO: The Judicial System Reform Council, a government advisory panel that has been exploring ways to involve the public directly in the criminal justice procedure, has completed an outline of its recommendations. The main points are as follows.

(1) Judges and impaneled jurors (citizens) are to deliberate together as equals on criminal cases to reach a verdict and determine penalties.

(2) Judges and juries are to explain their reasons for the verdicts, and defendants may appeal if they find the reasons unacceptable.

(3) A jury is to be impaneled for each case. Jury pools are to be randomly selected from among eligible voters, but prospective jurors are to be screened prior to impanelment to ensure a fair trial.

The proposal is basically modeled after the European system of citizens' participation in the judicial procedure, with some of the merits of the U.S. jury system added on.

Determining the most desirable size of a jury in proportion to the number of judges was a focal issue, but the advisory council has decided to forgo any final decision for the time being. One thing is certain: For any average citizen to feel comfortable about arguing his or her case before legal experts, it is vital that jurors outnumber judges in the courtroom.

On the other hand, we would be deeply disturbed if judges' decisions were to be overruled automatically by any majority decision of the jury for guilty verdicts and harsh sentences.

Legal experts have always warned against such an eventuality, noting this could constitute a violation of the Constitution that guarantees the right to fair trial and the autonomy of the court.

In this sense, we applaud the council's statement to the effect that it will not let either side outnumber the other in such a way as to find unfairly against the defendant.

This thinking is in line with the basic principle of the contemporary judicial procedure, which places the burden of proof on prosecutors who can exercise their law enforcement power to collect evidence.

The council is not to be construed as trying to undermine the role and function of jurors.

Given the time needed to create new, pertinent laws and familiarize them to the public, it will be some years before the council's recommendations are implemented. However, preparations should begin now to minimize any confusion that may arise during the transitional period.

Members of the legal profession will be the first to be tested. Since there is obviously a limit to how much time and energy ordinary citizens can give to their jury duty, lawyers will definitely have to strive for speedy trials, not to mention their need to get used to the new form of courtroom performance that relies less on paperwork and more on face-to-face exchanges. And one test of competence will be how succinctly they will be able to argue their cases in words that laymen can understand.

To meet such new demands, judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys should start taking stock of what they have been doing so far to see how best they can hone their professional skills.

Meantime, the public should also accept its new civic responsibility. Being called upon for jury duty means sacrificing some of one's time at home or work. And it may lead to having to pass a severe sentence against the accused. Understandably, many people would rather not get involved at all.

But among American and European citizens who have participated in the criminal justice procedure, many say that while they were initially reluctant, they eventually found the experience invaluable and rewarding. In Japan, too, similar thoughts are expressed by the great majority of people who have sat on prosecution inquests.

Trials conducted at the eye level of average citizens are not the only expected outcome of public participation in the judicial procedure. It should enable everyone to reawaken to their own sovereignty and understand what it means to be members of a law- abiding society.

Courtrooms of the future could well become ``classrooms'' where the public will be taught the principles of democracy at first hand.

For everyone to be able to take on this new responsibility called jury duty, society's systems and mind-set will have to change to allow people to spend more time on civic duties. And better judicial education will be a must, too.

The time has come for the government, local administrative entities and businesses alike to consider in earnest how they intend to pursue this new goal of citizens' participation in the judicial system.

-- The Asahi Shimbun