What brings people to the courtroom? Comparative analysis of people’s willingness to serve as jurors in Japan and the U.S

In May 2009, Japan introduced a criminal quasi-jury (called Saiban-in) system, and a judicial panel of three professional and six lay judges was asked to determine both the guilt and the sentence of criminal defendants. From 1928 to 1943, Japan had held criminal jury trials; but the Japanese military government suspended them in the midst of World War II, in part due to a lack of eligible males to serve as jurors. Although the 1943 Act (Law No. 88) was issued to suspend the Jury Act, which stated that the jury system would be reintroduced once the war was over, the government delayed and did not reinstate the lay judge system until 2009. 1 1 It is important to note the quasi-jury (Saiban-in) system is not a substitute for the all-citizen jury system suspended in 1943. These systems represent two distinct forms of citizen participatory institutions in Japan. The quasi-jury system thereby became Japan’s first participatory legal system over nearly sixty years. Like the pre-war jury system, the new quasi-jury system allowed Japanese citizens to take greater responsibility for judicial decision-making, improving public trust and confidence in the criminal justice system. The new system of lay adjudication also carried significant socio-political meaning for the Japanese government, because it placed even greater pressures on the state to behave properly and fairly in the criminal prosecution of defendants. This is especially true because, under the system of traditional professional judge decision-making, over 99% of all criminally indicted cases resulted in automatic conviction. It is now expected that, if ordinary citizens are sufficiently displeased with the government’s legal arguments, material evidence or testimony, they can vote against the convictions of those charged with serious crimes. While lay adjudication may lead to better judicial oversight of prosecutorial decision-making, recent Japanese surveys and public polls indicate that the majority of Japanese citizens do not affirmatively embrace their civic duty and obligation to serve as quasi-jurors. This paper attempts to investigate the sources of people’s participatory reluctance and examines the socio-attitudinal factors that might lead to more positive perceptions of civic responsibilities in criminal trials. Past research on American juries similarly indicates that very few Americans positively embrace jury service, and in fact expressly say that they are personally inconvenienced by it. None