Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T19:02:35.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deliberative Democracy and the Japanese Saiban-in (Lay Judge) Trial System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2016

Noboru YANASE
Noboru YANASE*
Affiliation:
College of Law, Nihon University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since May 2009, public participation in the criminal justice system, known as saiban-in seido (trial system by lay judges), has been implemented in Japan. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the law-making process of the saiban-in system and present an evaluation of the system from the perspective of deliberative democracy. This paper concludes that, contrary to criticism from those who want to introduce a purer form of jury trial dominated by lay jurors, the current saiban-in system, which mixes three professional judges with six saiban-ins, should be viewed positively from the perspective of deliberative democracy.

Keywords

saiban-in (lay judge) trial systemdeliberative democracyconstitutional theorylaw-making processJapan
Type
Research Article
Information
Asian Journal of Law and Society , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , November 2016 , pp. 327 - 349
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press and KoGuan Law School, Shanghai Jiao Tong University 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Associate Professor of Constitutional Law, College of Law, Nihon University. LL.M. Keio University, 2002; Ph.D. Keio University, 2009. This research is supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), Grant-in-Aid Scientific Research (KAKENHI #257800166 and #16K03301). An earlier version of this paper was partly presented as “Concepts of Democracy in the Legislative Process of the Saiban-in System” at the fourth East Asian Law & Society Conference in Tokyo, Japan, held on 4–6 August 2015. The author would like to thank Setsuo Miyazawa for organizing the session on “Democracy and the Lay Judge System in Japan.” The author is also grateful to Malcolm Feeley, Satoru Shinomiya, and Dimitri Vanoverbeke for their detailed comments and suggestions. The author would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their thorough reviews, and highly appreciates their comments and suggestions, which contributed to improving the quality of this paper. Correspondence to Noboru Yanase, 2-3-1 Misaki-chou, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-8375, Japan. E-mail address: [email protected].

References

Ackerman, Bruce (1991) We the People 1: Foundations, Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Kent, & Saint, Emma (2005) “Japan’s Quasi-Jury (Saiban-in) Law: An Annotated Translation of the Act Concerning Participation of Lay Assessors in Criminal Trials.” 6 Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal 233–283.Google Scholar
Anderson, Kent, & Nolan, Mark (2004) “Lay Participation in the Japanese Justice System: A Few Preliminary Thoughts Regarding the Lay Assessor System (saiban-in seido) from Domestic Historical and International Psychological Perspective.” 37 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 935–992.Google Scholar
Azusazawa, Kazuyuki (2010) “Saiban-in Seido to Koukai” [“Saiban-in System and Openness”]. 5 Yamanashi Gakuin Law Journal 37–68.Google Scholar
Bessette, Joseph M. (1980) “Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government,” in R.A. Goldwin & W.A. Schambra, eds., How Democratic Is the Constitution?, Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 102–116.Google Scholar
Cohen, Joshua (1997) “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy,” in J. Bohman & W. Regh, eds., Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corey, Zachary, & Hans, Valerie P. (2010) “Japan’s New Lay Judge System: Deliberative Democracy in Action?” 12 Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal 72–94.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. (2000) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon (1998) “Introduction,” in J. Elster, ed., Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estlund, David M. (1993) “Who’s Afraid of Deliberative Democracy? On the Strategic/Deliberative Dichotomy in Recent Constitutional Jurisprudence.” 71 Texas Law Review 1437–1477.Google Scholar
Fukurai, Hiroshi (2007) “The Rebirth of Japan’s Petit Quasi-Jury and Grand Jury Systems: A Cross-National Analysis of Legal Consciousness and the Lay Participatory Experience in Japan and U.S.” 40 Cornell International Law Journal 315–354.Google Scholar
Fukurai, Hiroshi, & Kurosawa, Kaoru (2010) “Impact of the Popular Legal Participation on Forced Confessions and Wrongful Convictions in Japan’s Bureaucratic Courtroom: A Cross-National Analysis in the U.S. and Japan.” 7(7) US-China Law Review 1–18.Google Scholar
Gardner, James A. (1996) “Shut Up and Vote: A Critique of Deliberative Democracy and the Life of Talk.” 63 Tennessee Law Review 421–452.Google Scholar
Gastil, John, Deess, E. Pierre Weiser, Philip J.& Simmons, Cindy (2010) The Jury and Democracy: How Jury Deliberation Promotes Civic Engagement and Political Participation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. (2005) Reflective Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goto, Akira (2014) “Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials in Japan.” 42 International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, & Thompson, Dennis (2004) Why Deliberative Democracy?, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasebe, Yasuo (2000) Hikaku-funou na Kachi no Meiro [The Labyrinth of Incommensurable Value], Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.Google Scholar
Higuchi, Yoichi (1995) “ Saiban no Dokuritsu” [“Independence of Judiciary”], in Y. Higuchi, ed., 6 Kouza Kenpou-gaku [Lectures on Constitutional Study], Tokyo: Nippon Hyoron Sha, 41–66.Google Scholar
Ikeda, Osamu (2009) Kaisetsu Saiban-in Hou: Rippou no Keii to Kadai [Commentary on the Saiban-in Act: Legislative History and Agenda], 2nd edn, Tokyo: Koubundou Publishers.Google Scholar
Ishimatsu, Takeo, & Isa, Chihiro (2009) Saiban-in Hikkei: Hihan to Taiou no Shiten kara [Companion to Saiban-in: From the Perspective of Criticism and Accommodation], Tokyo: Chikumashobo.Google Scholar
Kaneko, Hajime (1947) “Shihou Seido” [“Judicial System”], in Kokka Gakkai, ed., Shin-kempou no Kenkyu [Study on the New Constitution], Tokyo: Yuhikaku Publishing, 229–243.Google Scholar
Leib, Ethan J. (2004) Deliberative Democracy in America: A Proposal for a Popular Branch of Government, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Douglas G. (2008) “ Saiban-in-Seido: Lost in Translation? How the Source of Power Underlying Japan’s Proposed Lay Assessor System May Determine Its Fate.” 10 Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal 199–234.Google Scholar
Levin, Mark, & Mackie, Adam (2013) “Truth or Consequences of the Justice System Reform Council: An English Language Bibliography from Japan’s Millennial Legal Reforms.” 14 Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal 1–16.Google Scholar
Levin, Mark, & Tice, Virginia (2009) “Japan’s New Citizen Judges: How Secrecy Imperils Judicial Reform.” 7–19–6 Asia-Pacific Journal/Japan Focus 1–13.Google Scholar
Miyazawa, Setsuo (2007) “The Politics of Judicial Reform in Japan: The Rule of Law at Last?,” in W. P. Alford, ed., Raising the Bar: The Emerging Legal Profession in East Asia, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 107–162.Google Scholar
Miyazawa, Setsuo (2013) “Successes, Failures, and Remaining Issues of the Justice System Reform in Japan: An Introduction to the Symposium Issue.” 36 Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 313–347.Google Scholar
Muraoka, Keiichi (2011) “Saiban-in Seido to sono Tanjou: Hou no Keiju to Souzou no Kanten kara” [“Saiban-in Sytem and Its Introduction: From a Viewpoint of Reception and Creation of Law”], in A. Goto, ed., Higashi Ajia ni okeru Shimin no Keiji Shihou-sanka [Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials in East Asia], Tokyo: Kokusai Shoin, 13–30.Google Scholar
Nihon Bengoshi Rengou-kai [The Japan Federation of Bar Associations] (2004) “Saiban-in Seido, Keiji-saiban no Jujitsu, Jinsokuka oyobi Kensatsu Shinsa-kai Seido no Kokkaku-an ni taisuru Ikensho” [“Comments on the Outline of the Saiban-in System, Improvement and Speeding Up of Criminal Trials, and Prosecution Review Commission System”].Google Scholar
Nihon Shinbun Kyokai [The Japan Newspaper Publishers & Editors Association] (2004) “Saiban-in Seido Kokkaku-an ni taisuru Kenkai” [“Comments on the Outline of Saiban-in System”].Google Scholar
Oishi, Makoto (2014) Kempou Kougi [Japanese Constitutional Law], Vol. 1, 3rd edn, Tokyo: Yuhikaku Publishing.Google Scholar
Owens, Harrison L.E. (2016) “Trial by One’s Peers: The Need to Expand Japan’s Lay Judge System.” 25 Washington International Law Journal 191–221.Google Scholar
Plogstedt, Antoinette (2013) “Citizen Judges in Japan: A Report Card for the Initial Three Years.” 23 Indiana International & Comparative Law Review 371–428.Google Scholar
Saiban-in Seido ni kansuru Kentou-kai [The Investigative Committee on the Saiban-in System] (2013) “Saiban-in Seido ni kansuru Kentou-kai Torimatome Houkoku-sho” [“The Final Report of the Investigative Committee on the Saiban-in System”].Google Scholar
Saikou Saiban-sho Jimu Soukyoku [The General Secretariat of the Supreme Court] (2012) “Saiban-in Saiban Jisshi Jokyo no Kensho Houkoku-sho” [“The Verification Report of the Practices of the Saiban-in Trials”].Google Scholar
Saikou Saiban-sho Jimu Soukyoku Keiji Kyoku [Criminal Affairs Bureau, the General Secretariat of the Supreme Court] (1995) Waga-kuni de okonawareta Baishin Saiban: Shouwa Shoki ni okeru Baishin-hou no Unyou ni tsuite [Jury Trials Held in Japan: on the Administration of the Jury Act during the Early Showa Period], Tokyo: Shihou Kyoukai.Google Scholar
Sakamaki, Tadashi (2006) “Saiban-in Seido no Igi to Kadai” [“The Meaning and Problem of the Saiban-in System”]. 308 Hougaku Kyoushitsu 10–15.Google Scholar
Sato, Koji (2008) Gendai Kokka to Jinken [The Modern State and Human Rights], Tokyo: Yuhikaku Publishing.Google Scholar
Sato, Koji (2011) Nihon-koku Kempou-ron [On the Constitution of Japan], Tokyo: Seibundo Publishing.Google Scholar
Senger, Daniel (2011) “The Japanese Quasi-jury and the American Jury: A Comparative Assessment of Juror Questioning and Sentencing Procedure and Cultural Elements in Lay Judicial Participation.” 2011 University of Illinois Law Review 741–774.Google Scholar
Shihou-seido Kaikaku Shingi-kai [Justice System Reform Council] (1999) “Ronten Seiri” [“The Points at Issue in the Justice Reform”].Google Scholar
Shihou-seido Kaikaku Shingi-kai [Justice System Reform Council] (2000) “Chuukan Houkoku” [“The Interim Report”].Google Scholar
Shihou-seido Kaikaku Shingi-kai [Justice System Reform Council] (2001) “Shihou-seido Kaikaku Shingi-kai Ikensho: Nijuiseiki no Nihon wo Sasaeru Shihou-seido” [“Recommendations of the Justice System Reform Council: For a Justice System to Support Japan in the 21st Century”].Google Scholar
Shinohara, Hajime (2004) Shimin no Seiji-gaku: Tougi Demokurashi toha Nanika [Citizen’s Political Science: What is Deliberative Democracy?], Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
Shinohara, Hajime (2007) Rekishi Seijigaku to Demokurashi [Historical Political Science and Democracy], Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. (1993) The Partial Constitution, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. (2001) Designing Democracy: What Constitutions Do, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. (2007) Republic.com 2.0, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tamura, Tetsuki, (2008) Jukugi no Riyu: Minshushugi no Seiji-riron [Reasons for Deliberation: Democratic Theory in Reflective and Divided Societies], Tokyo: Keiso Shobo.Google Scholar
Tocqueville, Alexis de (1835=1945) Democracy in America, Vol. 1, New York: Alfred A. Knopf (Henry Reeve tr., Francis Bowen rev., & Phillips Bradley ed.).Google Scholar
Tsuji, Hiroyuki (2007) “‘Saiban-in no sanka-suru Keiji Saiban ni kansuru Houritsu’ no Kaisetsu (1)” [“Commentary on ‘the Act on Criminal Trials with Participation of Saiban-in’: Part 1”]. 59 Houso Jiho 33–121.Google Scholar
Vanoverbeke, Dimitri (2015) Juries in the Japanese Legal System: The Continuing Struggle for Citizen Participation and Democracy, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Mark (2002) “Deliberative Democracy,” in A. Carter and G. Stokes, eds., Democratic Theory Today: Challenges for the 21st Century, Cambridge: Polity Press, 173–202.Google Scholar
Yanase, Noboru (2009) Saiban-in Seido no Rippougaku: Tougi-minshushugi Riron ni motoduku Kokumin no Shihou-sanka no Igi no Sai-kousei [Institutional Design of the Saiban-in System: Reanalysis of the Meaning of the General Public Participation in the Criminal Justice System based on the Theory of Deliberative Democracy], Tokyo: Nippon Hyoron Sha.Google Scholar
Yanase, Noboru (2010) “The Meaning of the Peremptory Challenge in the Saiban-in (Lay Judges) Selection System in Japan: Legal Interpretation and Game Theoretical Analysis,” in Y. Kobayashi & S.J. Lee, eds., Government and Participation in Japanese and Korean Civil Society, Tokyo: Bokutakusha Publisher, 221–241.Google Scholar
Yanase, Noboru (2015) Jukuryo to Tougi no Minshushugi Riron: Chokusetsu-minshusei ha Daigisei wo Norikoerareruka [Debating Deliberative Democracy: Can Direct Democracy Override Representative Democracy?], Kyoto: Minerva Shobo.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion (2000) Inclusion and Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar