A court preparing to try four men for a brutal gang r**e has attracted criticism for excluding half the candidates for jury duty for such reasons as the fact that they were thought to have a “harsh attitude to sex crimes,” in the end settling on an all-male panel of 9.
The Nara prefecture court was preparing to try four men aged 21-23 on charges of gang violating and injuring a woman in her twenties they dragged into a station wagon, in what prosecutors say was a well planned and organised attack, with the gang going so far as to prepare a change of vehicles and number plates.
The men admit the circumstances of the attack, but each claims “it wasn’t me.”
Shaping up to be more controversial than the crime itself are the circumstances surrounding the selection of lay judges, the Japanese equivalent to jurors.
Japan only recently introduced a jury-like court system, with “lay judges” being selected from the general populace in order to serve as adjuncts to professional judges, in a system which is supposed to bring something of the liberal tradition of jury trials to Japan, which has long operated a system which critics say conspires to virtually guarantee conviction.
In this case, the first in the prefecture to use the new system, courts considered 49 candidates, 10 of whom were released from the obligation for the usual reasons.
Of the remaining 39, public prosecutors and the defence eliminated another 20, with candidates being ruled out for being “unsuitable” on such grounds as the fact that they were “old and likely to have a harsh attitude to sex crimes committed by youngsters” or that they “had relatives who were victims of sex crimes.”
The defence in fact succeeded in eliminating 16 candidates on the grounds that their inclusion might prejudice the trial against the accused. The prosecution eliminated 4.
When the court finally agreed on who was to judge the case, it had 3 professional judges and 6 lay judges, all of whom were male.
The defendants, though not admitting all the charges, are offering their “heartfelt” apologies along with ¥5,000,000 in compensation to the victim if she will but let them off the hook – Japanese courts allow judges to issue lenient sentences if victims accept compensation from defendants. If convicted of all charges they likely face lengthy prison sentences.
Apparently this court is operating on the same school of jurisprudence as the one which declared that a mentally disabled woman was incapable of accusing a man of rape…
To be fair, i think if you love Sex crimes you’d probably be banned too.
People’s bias will show through once the defendants are proven guilty, if applicable, in the form of a harsher sentence.
Unless they are somehow tricked into giving a guilty verdict, their “prejudice” against a particular type of crime theoretically shouldn’t shine through until the defendants’ guilt is proven.
One should screen out individuals that will presume guilt, rather than those who will be harsh on the guilty. I realize that because of a “prejudiced” juror’s emotions will come into play there will be some overlap, but I believe that a distinction should be made… After all, if these coordinated gang-rapists are kept away from women a little extra I doubt it’ll do the world much harm…
Sounds like a Kangaroo court.. what a farce.
It’s like a murder trial where they reject jurors who have family that were murdered, or have a harsh attitude towards murderers.
Yes, because there’s a legitimate fear of that traumatic experience clouding their judgement.
What you have to realise about criminal trials is, the prosecution has the police force and the judicial system to call on. They have a a stupendously huge pot of taxpayers’ money to f♥♥k around with, and they’re not going to share anything that might shore up the defendants innocence. “Anything you do say may be used in court against you”, not “for you”. The accused has only their own money or legal aid to fight with, so they need every advantage they get. Don’t like, write to your local representative about increasing legal aid until it’s equal to the level of resources the government has.
I can guarantee that anyone who seems unusually blase about sex crimes or at all misogynistic gets kicked out, too.
As for the suggested pay-off, even if you’re completely innocent, can you really say you’re 100% sure you won’t get convicted by a jury? Humans are fallible, and if you have it, spending $50,000 to guarantee you don’t get your life wrecked for something you didn’t do is cheap, however small the chances.
Totally retarded for outrage against crimes to be of obstacle to ‘objective’ ruling. If anything, there should be MORE outrage against violent crimes, especially something as heinous as sexual crimes than anything.
Legal systems in Japan is horrendously broken for giving way too much rights for criminals and too little protection and compensation for victims. Sadly, it’s one of the biggest things I hate about Japan other than its rampant racism and xenophobia.
“giving way too much rights for criminals”
ahem, how do you say we determine who the criminal is? accused people have to have the same rights as anyone to be fair and not convict the wrong person. If you convict incorrectly not only do you have an innocent person in jail but the real criminal is out free.
Giving a fair trial is one thing, but if the criminals have already confessed, there’s just a blatantly large body of evidence, then that kind of nature should take its course instead of the constant tampering and ‘evening out’ of the procedures just for the sake of fairness alone.
Convicting the right people is important of course, but being kicked out for ‘hating sex crime’? That kind of BS can only happen because of this overzealous idea that punishing blatant criminal acts, no matter how egregious should be balanced out. When that happens, what about the victim’s rights? What about their recourse? Of course, it’s merely an afterthought for this hackeneyed idea of ‘fairness’. The crime happening in the first place totally destroyed the sanctity of what’s fair to begin with.
And there is sometimes where people are called ‘criminals’ when the law is in error, as in the case of the statutory r♥♥e, ‘child sexual abuse’ and child pornography laws.
Those 3 are NOT meant to protect children, but instead to keep them celibate by fiat of law. Not right, if I allow my daughters/sons to be sexually active, that should be MY CHOICE, not societies… actually, it’s not even my choice, it is THEIR choice to doink or not, no matter who they are doing it with.