Most "Anglosphere" nations have Jury Duty (US, UK, AU, CA, NZ) and courtroom attendance is mandatory when given a summons. The thing is that Japan operates on a lay judge system (裁判員制度) but has something close to it I suppose where citizens are randomly selected to participate alongside professional judges in serious criminal trials to determine guilt and sentencing, however it's not the same as "Western Jury Duty" (where hundreds show up and only 12 are selected by attorneys). That doesn't concern you if you have a residence card (在留カード) or any type of visa in Japan (student, working holiday, business) since the court only cares about citizens (日本国籍).
In the UK, 97% of criminal cases are heard by magistrates; volunteers who are carefully selected by the judiciary via multiple interviews and aptitude tests, undergo training, sit in a triumvirate to hear cases, judge and hand down sentences asking advice where necessary, from the of the clerk of the court, a highly train legal person. They receive no pay for their civic duty and their employers have to release them from work for a for 13 days (26 half days) a year to fulfill their duty. I used to be one of these magistrates and it was…interesting.
After my experiences as a magistrate, if required to be tried in a court of law and had the choice, I would opt for a Judge- and not a jury hearing!
In the UK, 97% of criminal cases are heard by magistrates; volunteers who are carefully selected by the judiciary via multiple interviews and aptitude tests, undergo training, sit in a triumvirate to hear cases, judge and hand down sentences asking advice where necessary, from the of the clerk of the court, a highly train legal person. They receive no pay for their civic duty and their employers have to release them from work for a for 13 days (26 half days) a year to fulfill their duty. I used to be one of these magistrates and it was…interesting.
After my experiences as a magistrate, if required to be tried in a court of law and had the choice, I would opt for a Judge- and not a jury hearing!
You're saying that magistrates are volunteers? In the U.S. they are kind of like assistant judges that can handle smaller matters. It's a paid position.
Yes, we're volunteers. No pay, only expenses such as car mileage (I never claimed this as it was such a hassle!). No allowance for suits ties or shoes...nothing.
It'a felt that volunteering for such a role is part of one's 'civic duty'; paying back to a society that supports and cares for us.
Yes, we're volunteers. No pay, only expenses such as car mileage (I never claimed this as it was such a hassle!). No allowance for suits ties or shoes...nothing.
It'a felt that volunteering for such a role is part of one's 'civic duty'; paying back to a society that supports and cares for us.
I'd have to do some research, but I do remember hearing on the news over 15 years ago that the government at the time wanted to implement a jury system to Japan. I'm not sure whatever came out of that initiative.
The issue I have is the jury system requires one to be tried by one's peers but the people who I've met on juries are not my peers. They're often as far removed from me as they possibly could be!
Only two European countries—the United Kingdom and Ireland—rely heavily on the traditional English model of an independent, 12-person citizen jury to decide guilt in serious criminal trials. A few others (such as Austria, Belgium, France, Italy, and Spain) use modified 'Assize' courts, where a smaller panel of citizens sits alongside professional judges to deliberate and vote together on both guilt and sentencing
The issue I have is the jury system requires one to be tried by one's peers but the people who I've met on juries are not my peers. They're often as far removed from me as they possibly could be!
Only two European countries, the United Kingdom and Ireland, rely heavily on the traditional English model of an independent, 12-person citizen jury to decide guilt in serious criminal trials. A few others (such as Austria, Belgium, France, Italy, and Spain) use modified 'Assize' courts, where a smaller panel of citizens sits alongside professional judges to deliberate and vote together on both guilt and sentencing.
Austria has both assize courts ("Geschworenengerichte"), consisting of three professional judges and eight lay judges ("Geschworene"), and juries or "lay assessor courts" ("Schöffengericht"), where either one professional judge and two lay assessors (for most offences), or two professional judges and two lay assessors for highly complex or serious crimes, adjudicate.
After graduating from law school, I worked at a criminal district court, where I met strata of society I had never encountered before. I still consider my days there the most educational in my life. They taught me humility and respect for those I hadn't considered my peers before.
I'm going to be blunt now; based upon the people I chat to in my gym and everyday life -ordinary, everyday people- I wouldn't want them presiding over me (a brown-skinned, well spoken, educated liberal man) in a court of law. They don't seem to have the ability to juggle seemingly disparate pieces of information or declare their preconceptions or indeed move them to one side while cogitating.
I feel three qualified judges would be more like my peers (although my experience shows they dole out more punitive sentences)!
They don't seem to have the ability to juggle seemingly disparate pieces of information or declare their preconceptions or indeed move them to one side while cogitating.
Sadly even many of the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court can't do that. Their view and application of the law changes depending on the result they want to see. It's really disheartening.
I have served on jury duty in a criminal proceeding in the USA once. The defendant was black, the jury was almost entirely white, and he was found not guilty on all counts but one, which we all felt bad about, but the law was clear with no exceptions.
I got called up about 40 years ago. I mentioned I had been a police officer and was not sure I could be impartial and they sent me home and never asked me again.
I remember hearing that the American occupation forces instituted a jury system in Japan, but it was found that the Japanese jurors only gave verdicts they thought the judges wanted, so the idea was eventually scrapped
The Asahikawa 17-Year-Old High School Girl Murder Case: Timeline and Court Verdict
The Asahikawa 17-year-old high school girl murder case was one of Japan's most shocking criminal cases in recent years. It attracted nationwide attention because of the prolonged abuse of the victim and the brutal nature of the crime.
Background of the Case
In April 2024, a 17-year-old high school girl from Rumoi, Hokkaido , was allegedly lured to Asahikawa by two women after a dispute that began on social media.
According to the court, the victim was confined for several hours, physically assaulted, threatened, and forced to apologize repeatedly. Eventually, she was taken to the Kamikawa Ohashi Bridge over the Ishikari River. There, she was forced into the river, where she drowned. The court found that the defendants' actions led directly to her death.
The Trial
The case was tried under Japan's Saiban-in (lay judge) system, in which professional judges and ordinary citizens decide serious criminal cases together.
The prosecution argued that the crime was extremely cruel, premeditated, and demonstrated a complete disregard for human life. The defense raised various arguments regarding the defendants' roles and level of responsibility, but the court found both defendants criminally responsible.
The Verdict
The court imposed the following sentences:
The principal defendant: 27 years in prison
The co-defendant: 23 years in prison
Neither defendant received life imprisonment or the death penalty.
Public Reaction
The verdict sparked significant public debate in Japan.
Many people believed the prison sentences were too lenient considering the severity of the crime. Critics argued that the prolonged abuse, intimidation, and the victim's death warranted a harsher punishment, such as life imprisonment.
Legal experts, however, noted that Japanese courts determine sentences based on the Criminal Code, previous judicial precedents, the degree of each defendant's responsibility, and the available evidence. Under Japanese law, even very serious homicide cases do not automatically result in life imprisonment or the death penalty.
As a result, the case has become part of a broader discussion about Japan's lay judge system, sentencing standards, and whether penalties for particularly brutal crimes should be strengthened.
This vicious murder has attracted widespread media attention across Japan.
The Asahikawa District Court on Monday sentenced a 23-year-old woman to 27 years in prison for killing a high school girl by forcing her from a bridge into a river in Hokkaido in 2024, in a case that has attracted widespread attention across Japan. Uchida Riko had been charged with murder, sexual assault resulting in death and unlawful confinement of the 17-year-old victim. The Asahikawa District Court handed down the same 27-year prison term sought by prosecutors.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
