裁判員制度の評議と報道 : 英国陪審制度が示唆するもの

DOI Web Site

書誌事項

タイトル別名
  • Press Coverage of Deliberations in Japan's Saiban-in System : Implications from Britain's Jury System
  • サイバンイン セイド ノ ヒョウギ ト ホウドウ : エイコク バイシン セイド ガ シサ スル モノ

この論文をさがす

抄録

The introduction of judging panels for criminal trials comprising both professional judges and ordinary citizens has raised questions over how trials are reported. The saiban-in system imposes a duty of confidentiality upon panel members regarding their judgment deliberations. Press access to the individuals is prohibited, and reporters are banned from describing the course of deliberations. However, the press nevertheless has a role in assessing whether this new trial system works. Comparison with the British jury system - which has similar restrictions - suggests that the saiban-in system should be revised in order to balance the fairness of trials with free of expression and the press. Firstly, the current rule preventing saiban-in participants from expressing their personal opinions on the final judgment is excessive. The restriction is so vague that it makes saiban-in feel they can't talk about the trial at all. British juries, by comparison, make a distinction between how they assess the final judgment and what they thought during deliberations, which allows jurors to express the former and not the latter. Secondly, saiban-in should be permitted to talk about their deliberations if they took place in an inappropriate manner. In the UK, it is said that under the secrecy of deliberation, it is difficult to verify or improve the system if the entire chapter takes place in a black box. Particularly in Japan, where it is important to ensure the genuineness of participation by ordinary citizens, the manner in which judges preside over the deliberation process should be checked in certain situations. It is important to verify the performance of the saiban-in system, in order to improve it or even to consider alternatives. The responsibility for such verification should lie not only with the court itself, but also with the press and an independent body, which can see the process more objectively.

収録刊行物

詳細情報 詳細情報について

問題の指摘

ページトップへ