{"id":433,"date":"2007-05-31T14:23:45","date_gmt":"2007-05-31T05:23:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.debito.org\/?p=433"},"modified":"2008-04-23T12:16:58","modified_gmt":"2008-04-23T03:16:58","slug":"dietmember-hosaka-critical-of-thought-screening-in-new-j-jury-system","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/?p=433","title":{"rendered":"Dietmember Hosaka critical of “thought screening” in new J jury system"},"content":{"rendered":"

Hi Blog. Excerpting an excellent article from Chris Salzberg at Global Voices Online<\/a> on Japan’s upcoming jury system (from May 2009). He translates Lower House Dietmember Hosaka Nobuto<\/a>‘s questioning of the Justice Minister et al regarding their proposed screening of applicant citizen jurors in the new and upcoming jury for criminal cases.<\/p>\n

I don’t want to cut and paste in Chris’s entire blog entry, so see it here.<\/a> But I will paste below his and his partner’s translation of Hosaka’s blog entry (Japanese original here<\/a> or up at the abovementioned Chris blog link<\/a>). <\/p>\n

This is very important, since for once Japan’s judiciary is trying to open the sacerdotal system of judicial decisionmaking to more public input and scrutiny. And here they go all over again trying to screen jurors to make sure they are sympathetic towards (i.e. trusting of) the police. The police and prosecutors have enough power at their disposal to convict people (to the point of raising hackles at the UN Committee Against Torture)<\/a> without proposing to stack the jury too.<\/p>\n

Again, it’s best written up at Chris’s blog, so also take a look at that<\/a>. Arudou Debito in Sapporo<\/p>\n

==============================
\n(Written by Chris Salzberg and Tokita Hanako)<\/p>\n

…It is only against this backdrop of the chronic problem of forced confessions that Hosaka\u2019s blog entry can really be understood. The blog entry is called \u201cThe hidden \u2018trap\u2019 of the citizen judge system: thought checking in citizen judge interviews\u201c, and begins:<\/b><\/p>\n

Yesterday, in the Lower House Committee on Judicial Affairs, I questioned [the government] for 40 minutes over a legal revision of criminal proceedings to institutionalize \u201cParticipation in the Judicial Action of Crime Victims\u201d. In exchanges between the Supreme Court and the Justice Ministry, a state of affairs was revealed in which the legal system would be swayed from its foundation by a \u201cwide range of views from a group of citizens chosen by drawing lots\u201d, part of the [new] citizen judge system. When a police officer is called by the prosecution to testify as a witness, it is permissible to ask the citizen judge candidates and the court of justice: \u201cDo you have trust in the investigation of this police officer?\u201d If you answer: \u201cNo, I do not trust this police officer\u201d, then the prosecutor can judge that \u201cA fair trial cannot be guaranteed\u201d and can instigate a procedure in which, without indicating any reasons, a maximum of 4 candidates can be disqualified.<\/i><\/p>\n

The 6 members of the citizen judge system, acting as \u201crepresentatives of the people\u201d, under this filtering by the prosecution, becomes a group of only \u201cwell-intentioned citizens without any doubts about the police\u201d; this in turn has a huge influence in court battles in which the prosecution argues with the defence over the \u201cvoluntariness of confessions\u201d [extracted by the police]. The investigation has the authority to perform a \u201cthought check\u201d on these delegates of the citizen court system, chosen by \u201cdrawing lots\u201d, related to issues such as their \u201cdegree of confidence in the police investigation\u201d and their \u201cview on the death penalty\u201d, and, without stating any reason, can carry out a \u201cchallenge\u201d procedure to eliminate up to 4 candidates. I am shocked that this scheme has been hidden. For the \u201cbureaucracy\u201d, this very convenient \u201cwell-intentioned citizen without doubts about the bureaucracy\u201d, chosen from the entire population by drawing lots, is nothing more than a disguise under the name of \u201cparticipation in the legal system\u201d. If the three elements of the judicial community have concocted these \u201cunacceptable questions\u201d which could impinge on the freedom of thought and creed, we cannot ignore this. Below I have presented a tentative record [of the proceedings]. Starting next week, I will try to put the brakes on this reckless degeneration of justice. Please have a look at the exchange that took place in the Committee of Judicial Affairs, reproduced below.<\/p>\n

The rest of the blog entry consists of the proceedings of the Diet session, translated here in their entirety:<\/p>\n

Hosaka
\nThere was an article in yesterday\u2019s newspaper about the finalization of the essentials of a supreme court outline relating to procedures for the court of justice\u2019s new citizen judge system. In this article, it was explained that the citizen judges would be questioned in an oral consultation or interview. In these consultations or interviews, \u201cinvestigator testimony\u201d \u2014 i.e. in cases in which the police officer (witness) is scheduled to testify \u2014 if there is an appeal by the person concerned (prosecution), then the presiding judge can ask: \u201cAre there any circumstances in which you would be able to trust this investigation conducted by the police and others? Or, alternatively, are there any circumstances about which you do not have particular confidence?\u201d In cases in which the answer is \u201cno\u201d, no further questions are asked [of the candidate citizen judge]. In cases in which the answer is \u201cyes\u201d, the citizen judge is asked: \u201cWhat kind of circumstances are these?\u201d Depending on the answer to this question, if necessary, the candidate citizen judge is then asked: \u201cDo you think you can consider the contents of the police officer\u2019s testimony and render a fair judgement?\u201d The citizen is assessed on the basis of the existence or nonexistence of doubts about the fairness of the trial. What is the meaning of this? We are all acutely aware of the fact that there are cases, such as the Shibushi incident, in which police investigations have gone much too far. One of these citizen judge candidates might for example say: \u201cPolice investigations sometimes do things behind closed doors, so in this sense perhaps they go too far.\u201d What is the intention of this questioning?<\/p>\n

(Detective Superintendent of the Secretariat of the Supreme Court) Ogawa
\nI will answer the question. In cases in which there are arrangement procedures preceding the public trial, when it becomes known either that applications are being processed for an investigator witness, or that an investigator is scheduled to appear, in cases in which the party concerned has made a request, in order to assess whether or not there is any possibility that judgement about the \u201cconfidence in the verbal testimony of the investigator witness\u201d will be dealt with in an unfair manner, we are right now considering questions indicated by the committee member (Hosaka) so that we can use it as one reference. In a practical sense, the court makes the decision, so how things will turn out, in concrete terms, is really a judgement to be made by the court.<\/p>\n

Hosaka
\nI am asking this question to the Detective Superintendent of the Justice Ministry. In cases such as you just mentioned, in which the investigator appears as a witness, probably a confession has been made. However, what about cases in which, after the [confession], the person switches their position and issues a denial, and raises doubts about the voluntariness of the \u201crecorded confession\u201d? I believe that there are many cases of this kind. The court is asking questions: \u201cDo you have trust in the investigation of the police officer?\u201d If a candidate answers in an interview: \u201cI have no trust at all. I think that it is strange, all these things going on behind closed doors recently,\u201d then the investigator is able to challenge the candidacy of the citizen judge. Could this be a reason for disqualification?<\/p>\n

(Someone from the ruling party [LDP] exclaims:
\nThey can do that? Hosaka\u2019s explanation to this ruling party member: \u201cYes, they can issue challenges. Without giving a reason, they can disqualify up to 4 candidates. How will the prosecution judge people who have doubts in their mind about the police officer?\u201d)<\/p>\n

(Detective Superintendent of the Secretariat of the Supreme Court) Ogawa
\nOn the question of under what circumstances an investigator can, without indicating any reason, challenge [the candidacy of a citizen judge], we really haven\u2019t done any concrete investigation on this. I think it is up to the judgement of the investigator in each individual case.<\/p>\n

Hosaka
\nI request that the Minister of Justice share his thoughts on this. The citizen judges are chosen by drawing lots. From a list of registered voters in the Lower House elections. However, in this process, in cases in which [the candidate citizen judge] says: \u201cI have a bit of trouble placing my trust in this police investigation\u201d, the prosecution can declare that \u201cWe challenge [the candidacy of] this citizen judge\u201d. The citizen judge may then be excluded. \u2026\u2026if citizen judges become the object of such challenges, I wonder if we can really say that this is a system which draws on an even distribution of representative views of people from the entire country? I am extremely concerned. What do you think about this situation?<\/p>\n

Justice Minister Nagase
\nI remember that there were various views expressed when the citizen court system was being set up. \u201cIf this is in there, then won\u2019t everybody be judged innocent?\u201d, \u201cNo, everyone will be sentenced , right?\u201d, I remember that there were arguments like this. The concerns that you are expressing now are I believe related to those earlier arguments. However, in the three branches of government, in an appropriate manner, we are working toward a citizen judge system that reflects the good sense of the average citizen, not some kind of legal debate in which people quibble over every insignificant detail.<\/p>\n

Hosaka
\nMy intention is not to quibble over every insignificant detail. What we have to debate about, in a broader sense, is the participation, in the court of justice, of the \u201cvictim\u201d within the citizen judge system. As we now understand the meaning of the \u201cchallenge\u201d [of candidates], I want to have a thorough debate on this issue.
\nENDS\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Dietmember Hosaka raises important questions regarding the upcoming jury system for Japan’s criminal courts. There is a provision for disqualifying candidate jurors if they “don’t trust the police”. This is very important, since for once Japan’s judiciary is trying to open the sacerdotal system of judicial decisionmaking to more public input and scrutiny. And here they go all over again trying to screen jurors to make sure they are sympathetic towards the police. The police and prosecutors have enough power at their disposal to convict people without proposing to stack the jury too. Translations of Hosaka’s questions included.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,4,14,15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-433","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-human-rights","category-japanese-government","category-japanese-politics","category-lawsuits"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/433","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=433"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/433\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=433"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=433"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=433"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}