The Japanese Quasi-Jury and the American Jury - Term Paper Example

A body was created to collect views and give recommendations on the approaches to reform the country’s judiciary. The body proposed the establishment of the quasi-jury to try the high-crime cases. The quasi-jury structure was formulated through the ‘Lay Assessor Act’ the system was a concession between the political elements and the conservative individuals. The Supreme Court was opposed to the move to create a jury that was similar to the American jury. Under the law, the judges are required to use the law in the determination of the innocence or guilt of an individual as well as give a ruling on the sentence.

Moreover, the judges make a determination on matters regarding the interpretation of the laws and decisions beyond the authority of the lay assessors. A presiding judge administers the trial procedures but the statutes of evidence in Japan’s judicial process are indistinct and simple compared to the procedures in the US. The presiding judge has the authority to limit the number of questions on a witness as well as the determination of the unsuitable evidence given by a witness before a ‘Saiban-in panel’.

Moreover, the opposing advocate may reject the improper assessment of the evidence. The discussions between the judges and lay assessors demand that majority as opposed to a unanimous decision. Nonetheless, the composition of the majority must have a professional judge especially when ruling on the guilt of an accused person. The information arising from is regarded as confidential while those leaking the information being subjected to a fine. The composition of the bench and lay assessors is dependent on the situation and the magnitude of the.

The legal system in Japan has been largely a civil law since the approval of the Japanese Civil Code in the late 1890s. The system was borrowed from the western nations such as France and Germany. The model persevered even after the Second World War and the adoption of the contemporary constitution in Japan. The separation of power among the various arms of the government is similar to the American model. The judiciary has autonomy like the other arms. In the US, there are divergent procedures in the cases depending on the state although they are largely guided by the constitution.

The quasi-jury exercised in Japan has both positive and negative effects depending on the administration. Whereas citizen participation in the judicial process is significant, the established procedures and restrictions are important to assist in getting timely and fair justice. The judicial system in any nation should be informed by the culture of its people and the nature of the governance structures in order to ensure the obligations are met in a desirable approach. It would be more desirable if the principles and frameworks of the jury are reformed in line with the demands of the country and the global environment.

Judicial systems are viewed as essential in human-social existence in the society. The Saiban-in system has resulted in minimal effect regarding the prosecution of cases. The system has given the public a dynamic responsibility in the judicial processes, which is likely to improve when the citizens become familiar with the system and the lay judicial involvement.