The Japanese justice system recently adopted new measures to make criminal trials fairer. Citizens are now allowed to participate in trials, along with judges, in serious criminal cases, including death penalty cases. Unlike the American justice system in which judges can overturn jury verdicts, Japanese citizens will now be given the same authority as judges.

According to a survey, more than 80% of Japanese people support the death penalty, however, more than 70% of those surveyed do not want to be involved in the decision making process. (Surveyed in December 2008 and released in January 2009: http://www.mansfieldfdn.org/polls/2008/poll-08-31.htm)

Yes, it appears that supporting the death penalty is "Easier Said Than Done"!

It seems that the issues and emotions surrounding the death penalty are far too intense for many ordinary people to manage. Indeed, it is a difficult and problematic endeavor even for experienced lawyers and judges.

Some problems with this new jury system in Japan have already been raised, including:

1. It is said that judges and prosecutors might try to make citizen trials shorter and simpler in order to reduce their work load. Expediting trials for this reason is shocking and immoral, yet safeguards have not been put in place to prevent this from occurring. All cases, especially serious criminal cases, should be given due diligence and a careful examination.

2. The evidence presented in these cases, such as gruesome crime scene photos and bloody murder weapons, is often very disturbing. Many jurors cannot help but to avert their eyes. As a result, evidence of this nature may be converted into digital images in order to shield jurors from the full emotional impact of this evidence. Altering evidence in this way to make it more palatable to jurors is deeply troubling.

I'm very concerned that this new jury system may have the opposite of its intended effect by making trials less fair.



Posted in Blog

Comments

1. Comment by Jeanne MacDonald, Nov 29th, 2009 2:57pm

   I can never support the death penalty, simply because our justice system is so often wrong.
   Donald Marshall - 11 years for a murder he did not commit; police and crown attorney did not disclose evidence that would have cast grave doubt on his involvement.
   David Milgaard - 22 years for a murder he did not commit; convicted on the very dubious evidence of 'snitches' who were paid for their testimony.
   Then there are Gregory Parsons, Guy Paul Morin, James Driskell, William Mullins-Johnson and Robert Baltovich. All convicted through ineptness or malice of crimes that could have gotten them the death penalty.
   And let us not forget Stephen Truscott, though God knows the canadian justice would as soon that chapter of its history was swept under a rug.
   Convicted of murder in 1959, Truscott was sentenced to death at the age of 14. His death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, and he continued to maintain his innocence until 2007, when his conviction was declared a miscarriage of justice and he was formally acquitted.
   The only positive aspect was that Truscott's case was a major factor in the abolition of the death penalty in Canada.
   
   




2. Comment by Maria Paula Fonseca, Jul 12th, 2009 7:17am

   Please do not forget that the death penalty is the only punishment wich has no return. There have been mistakes before but those people are not here to tell how it was.
   Isn't that enough?