Japan\u27s Prosecutorial Review Commissions: Lay Oversight of the Government\u27s Discretion of Prosecution

No abstract availabl

Japan\u27s Prosecutorial Review Commissions: Lay Oversight of the Government\u27s Discretion of Prosecution

No abstract availabl

Japan\u27s Quasi-Jury and Grand Jury Systems as Deliberative Agents of Social Change: De-Colonial Strategies and Deliberative Participatory Democracy

Direct participatory democracy touches Japan anew in its current attempt to reform and reconstruct the criminal justice system through the introduction of two tiered systems of quasi-jury (saiban-in) and grand jury (kensatsu shinsakai) institutions. Not only did the twin systems of lay deliberation help create an effective and investigative mechanism against the corporate predation and governmental abuse of power, they also allowed the prosecution of military crimes committed by U.S. Armed Forces personnel and their families stationed in Japan. My paper then examines the historical evolution of these newly established lay justice institutions, exploring the increasing adoption of lay forms of adjudication as both de-colonial and emancipatory agents of social change in Japan

Introduction: The Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Disaster and the Future of Nuclear Energy Programs in Japan and East Asia

On March 11, 2011, a massive 9.0 magnitude quake and powerful tsunami slammed the northeastern region of Japan. Huge seismic activities knocked out the power at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant, and ensuing tidal waves disabled the backup generators for cooling systems to the active reactors. This triggered a series of hydrogen explosions and released dangerously high levels of radioactive particles into the atmosphere. The Japanese government declared a nuclear emergency, due to the worst nuclear crisis in Japanese history, and decided to evacuate 140,000 residents within twenty kilometers of the plant to various relocation center

Lay Judge and Victim Participation in Japan: Japan’s Saiban’in Trial, the Prosecution Review Commission, and the Public Prosecution of White-Collar Crimes

In September 2019, the University of California Hastings Law School hosted a symposium on Japan’s newly instituted public and victim participation systems in the criminal process. This paper addresses themes raised by five scholars\u27 presentations at the symposium, covering the effectiveness and impact of three different newly adopted systems of lay and victim participation in Japan: (1) the new 2009 law of the Prosecution Review Commission (PRC), a Japanese-style “civil grand jury” originally introduced in 1948, which gave the PRC the power to force the prosecution of formerly unindicted cases, thereby challenging and reversing the prosecutor’s original non-prosecution decision; (2) a mixed tribunal called “Saiban’in Seido” introduced in 2009, a quasi-jury panel of three professional and six lay judges in the adjudication of violent and serious criminal offenses; and (3) the victim participation program implemented in 2008, in which crime victims and their proxies were allowed to express their opinions and grievances during the criminal justice process. This paper also explores alternative trial venues through which the adjudication of whitecollar crime may possibly take place, including a new mixed tribunal, as well as the all-citizen, 12-member jury trial.1 While Japan’s Jury Law was suspended in 1943, its legal provision still exists as part of today’s criminal law, and public efforts have been underway to “unsuspend” and bring back the Jury Law in Japan. Also discussed in this paper is the “revolutionary” use of the all-citizen PRC in the prosecution of state crime, one of the most egregious of white-collar crimes committed by the government. Specifically explored is the PRC’s role in challenging an “unequitable” bilateral treaty between the U.S. and Japanese governments and in extending Japanese jurisdiction over the adjudication of foreign military felons who victimize local residents

Special Feature: The Future of Lay Adjudication in Korea and Japan

Three years after Korea introduced the jury system for the first time in its history, and two years following the Japanese introduction of a mixed court in which citizen and professional judges decide serious criminal cases, the Second East Asian Law and Society Conference was held on September 30th and October 1st, 2011 in the vibrant city of Seoul, South Korea. This Special Issue of the Yonsei Law Journal offers an opportunity to present work on some of the key issues that were discussed and debated at this remarkable conference. In particular, the special issue offers new research on the advent of lay participation in legal decision making in East Asia at a very auspicious period in time

Ensuring Racial Representation on Jury Panels: An Empirical and Simulation Analysis

Ensuring Racial Representation on Jury Panels: An Empirical and Simulation Analysi

\u27Race Salience\u27 in Juror Decision-making: Misconceptions, Clarifications, and Unanswered Questions

In two frequently cited articles, Sommers and Ellsworth (2000, 2001) concluded that the influence of a defendant’s race on White mock jurors is more pronounced in interracial trials in which race remains a silent background issue than in trials involving racially charged incidents. Referring to this variable more generally as race salience, we predicted that any aspect of a trial that leads White mock jurors to be concerned about racial bias should render the race of a defendant less influential. Though subsequent researchers have further explored this idea of race salience, they have manipulated it in the same way as in these original studies. As such, the scope of the extant literature on race salience and juror bias is narrower than many realize. The present article seeks to clarify this and other misconceptions regarding race salience and jury decision-making, identifying in the process avenues for future research on the biasing influence of defendant race

Deliberative Democracy and the American Civil Jury

Civil jury service should be a potent form of deliberative democracy, creating greater civic engagement. However, a 2010 seven-state study of jury service and voting records found no overall boost in civic engagement following service on civil juries, whereas jurors who served on criminal cases did show increased civic engagement following their jury service. This article reports a project that augments the civil jury data set with information about jury decision rule, jury size, defendant identity, and case type and examines whether specific types of civil jury service influence postservice voting. Taking into account preservice voting records, jurors who serve on a civil jury that is required to reach unanimity or a civil jury of 12 are significantly more likely to vote after their service. Jurors who decide cases with organizational, as opposed to individual, defendants likewise show a boost in voting behavior, as do jurors deciding contract or nonautomotive torts cases compared to automotive torts. Limitations and implications of these findings for deliberative democracy theory and jury practice are discussed