Have you reached a verdict?

裁判員制度の問題点

The nation has a history of jury trials. For a quarter century before the end of World War II, from 1928 to 1943, a jury system based on the Anglo-American model was used in criminal trials. The underlying reason for its abolition must have been the failure of democracy in a country in the grip of surging militarism.

Under the saiban-in system, which is said to be similar to the French and German system of "trial by consultation," judges and citizens will work together in deciding major felony cases, such as those involving murder.

In principle, each case will be decided by a panel of three judges and six citizens. In special cases, however, decisions will be made by a smaller group of one judge and four citizens. Citizen judges will be randomly selected from eligible voters, but those selected will have a right to refuse participation. Those close to the case involved, such as relatives and friends of the accused or the victim, as well as third persons biased against the trial, will be disqualified.

Lay judges will deliberate cases in a joint session with professional judges, exchanging opinions. However, consideration of highly technical matters, such as those open to legal interpretation, will be left to professionals. The panel will decide "guilty or not guilty" and, if guilt is established, the level of punishment, including the death penalty. Each member of the panel will have one vote. A decision will be made by a majority vote that includes at least one professional ballot.

The new system, designed as it is to promote citizens' participation in the justice system, seems to have broad public support. Disagreement exists, however, over specifics, such as the number of citizen judges to be selected. The 2-to-1 ratio — six lay people to three professionals — may not be an ideal combination, but it does provide assurances that public opinion will be reflected directly in the trial of criminal cases.

Another point of disagreement is how to punish citizen judges who divulge confidential trial-related information, such as remarks made by panel members during deliberations and privacy matters involving people implicated in cases. The basic rule is that those citizens must keep such information to themselves during and after their stints as judges. According to the original plan, those who revealed details of deliberation would have been imprisoned for up to one year or fined a maximum of ¥500,000. Citizens who provided false information during the selection process would be fined.

That drew criticism from various quarters, including the media, during the two months of Diet deliberations. Critics argued, rightly, that too severe requirements for confidentiality would have a chilling effect on citizen judges' activities and thus impede public participation. The media expressed concern that heavy penalties would lead to the restriction of freedom of the press.

The revisions made in the Diet, based on agreement between the governing and opposition parties, call for less stringent penalties. Citizen judges who leak privacy information or comments by panel members while on duty will be imprisoned for up to six months or fined a maximum of ¥500,000. The same penalties will be imposed on former citizen judges who make similar disclosures or reveal the "deliberation process" for monetary gain. Those who reveal the process without such intent will be fined up to ¥500,000.

It is estimated that the saiban-in system will be used in about 2,800 criminal cases a year. This means that one of every 120 or so citizens will serve as a lay judge in his or her lifetime. More than half a century after the collapse of the ill-fated jury system, the nation's postwar judicial system is headed for a new era of participatory adjudication.

The new law seems to leave much to be desired. It remains unclear, for example, specifically what the "deliberation process" means. Further debate is needed to clarify this and other ambiguities. What is most important is to ensure that this epochal trial system proves efficient and effective with the full understanding and support of ordinary people.

The Japan Times Weekly
June 5, 2004
(C) All rights reserved

      日本では1928年〜1943年に、刑事裁判について英米式の「陪審制」が採用されていた。廃止されたのは、軍国主義の時代に民主的制度が合わなくなったからだろう。

      裁判員制度は、ドイツ、フランスの「参審制」に似ており、裁判官と裁判員が殺人などの重大犯罪の裁判を担当する。

      原則として、1件につき裁判官3人と裁判員6人が審理を行う。裁判員は資格のある有権者のなかから無作為で選ばれるが、選任を辞退することもできる。被告・被害者の親族、知人、裁判に対して偏見を持つものは失格する。

      裁判員は裁判官と審理を行うが、法の解釈のからむ専門的問題などでは、判断は裁判官にゆだねられる。裁判員と裁判官の合議体は、有罪か無罪か、有罪の場合には刑の重さを決める。判決は、合議体の過半数（裁判官1名以上を含む）の賛成による。

      制度自体は国民に支持されているようだが、裁判員の数と、評議の経過や関係者の個人情報などを漏らした裁判員に対する罰則などについて意見が分かれている。

      与野党の合意に基づく法案改正で、職務遂行中に関係者の個人情報や評議の経過を漏らした裁判員には6ヵ月までの禁固または50万円までの罰金を科す、などの罰則が決められた。

      裁判員制度が適用される刑事裁判は年2800件と見られ、国民の120人に1人は一生のうち1回は裁判員を務めることになる。

      裁判員制度は、特に秘密情報の取り扱いについて問題を残している。例えば「評議の経過」が具体的に何を意味しているのか判然としない。制度のあいまいな点を明確にするため論議を重ねる必要がある。最も重要なことは、この制度を国民の理解と支持により有効に機能させることである。