Problems concerning lay judge system should be quickly mended
(From The Japan Times May 21 issue)

裁判員制度の問題点を早急に是正せよ

Epoch-making judiciary reform is starting as lay judges prepare to sit for trials of suspects indicted on and after May 21 on serious charges such as murder, arson and kidnapping for ransom. But many people are not enthusiastic about the system because it has been implemented from above. The Supreme Court and the government should have the courage to quickly mend any problems with the system so that it receives public support.

Six lay judges and three professional judges will sit for a district court-level trial. A majority decision, with the support of at least one professional judge, is needed for a guilty ruling. The possibility of having to pass a death sentence is causing great stress to some citizens. To lessen their burden and to increase the ruling's credibility, a rule that makes a unanimous decision mandatory for passing a death sentence should be seriously considered.

The scope of evidence to be used for a trial and the points of contention are narrowed down in a pretrial procedure. To ensure a fair trial, the government should make it obligatory for the prosecution to disclose all evidence, disadvantageous and advantageous to defendants, during the procedure.

A 2004 revision of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits lawyers and defendants from showing or handing copies of evidence they have received from the prosecution to third parties. This could diminish the right of defendants to defend themselves and limit the freedom of the press. The government should remove punishment for lawyers and defendants who pass copies of evidence to third parties for legitimate purposes.

The police and the prosecution, meanwhile, have resisted recording the entire process of interrogation of criminal suspects onto DVD, opting for partial recording only. Partial recording, however, could omit crucial incidents in the confession process and complicate the proceedings, especially in cases where suspects withdraw earlier confessions.

The strict gag order on lay judges should be lessened to some extent. Their talking about concrete complaints and difficulties would help improve the system.

殺人や放火、身代金目的の誘拐など重罪裁判に裁判員が参加する画期的司法改革が始まるが、政府主導の同制度に及び腰の人も多い。最高裁と政府は問題を改善する勇気を持ち、国民の支持を得るべきだ。裁判員6人と裁判官3人が地裁レベルの事件を扱うが、有罪判決には裁判官一人以上を含む過半数が必要だ。死刑判決に関しては、全員一致制が検討されるべきだ。

争点や証拠は公判前整理手続きで絞られるが、公正を期すため、検察側が不利な証拠も含め弁護側にすべて開示するよう義務づけるべきだ。検察側から開示された証拠の目的外使用を禁ずる2004年の刑事訴訟法改正は、弁護側の権利と報道の自由を侵害する恐れがある。政府は正当な目的の使用を罰することをやめるべきだ。

警察と検察側は、取調べの全過程録画を拒んできたが、一部録画では自白に至るまでの重要な出来事が省かれる恐れがある。裁判員の守秘義務は緩和が必要だ。問題点を具体的に話し合うことは制度の改善につながる。