Dismissal of Citizen’s Decision

The Supreme Court of Japan on Wednesday commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment for each of two defendants who committed murder. The decision was against the sentence in the first instance, which was written in citizen judge system. While the Supreme Court focused on considered the balance between its decision and similar precedents, some argued that it would undermine the significance of the young system for introducing civil views in judicial branch. Jurisdiction in Japan is still under control of professional legal circle.

One of the two cases was a murder of a female college student by a man who had repeatedly raped other women and committed robbery for three months after he left prison. Another was a murder of an old man by a man who had a history of killing his wife and daughter.

Each of those cases was judged in citizen judge system in regional court, in which six citizens and three professional judges conferred. The sentence for the first case focused on the fact that the defendant committed multiple rapes before killing the student. Previous murder on his family was considered for death sentence in the second case. Appeal courts by only professional judges dismissed those decisions and commuted to life in prison.

The Supreme Court decided that the death sentence in the first case was too emphasizing anti-social tendency of the defendant. And on the second case, it concluded that previous murder for family was less related to the prosecuted case. The Court approved the decisions of appeal courts rather than those through citizen judge system.

In the legal community in Japan, death sentence is regarded as a special decision only made with true necessity. Professional judges have been considering the death penalty along with a legal stipulation in 1983, which raised nine criteria including brutality, motivation or number of victims. The Supreme Court recognized that the first instances were out of balance with other previous cases, in which considered death penalty.

Fundamental question is raised here: Is the citizen judge system necessary, if professional judges overturn judgment of civil participants? The system poses heavy responsibility on ordinary citizens who are randomly chosen. The basic reason of introducing the system was to lighten the burden of the professionals who needed to make decisions in serious crimes. If the legal community discretionarily selects the decision of citizens, the system should be dismantled soon.