Japanese Court Reform on Trial

doi:10.1017/9781108234979.007

6 - Japanese Court Reform on Trial

from Part II - Court Reform on Trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 April 2019

David T. Johnson and

Edited by

Hadar Aviram and

Rosann Greenspan: Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Hadar Aviram: Affiliation:
University of California, Hastings College of the Law
Jonathan Simon: Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Court reform is on trial in Japan and two things can be said about the verdict: it will take at least several more years to make a sound assessment of the recent changes, and when the conclusion comes, it will be a hung jury, because different people expect different things from the reforms – and they are not compatible.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Legal Process and the Promise of Justice
Studies Inspired by the Work of Malcolm Feeley
, pp. 122 - 138

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108234979.007 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abramson, Jeffrey. 1994. We, the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Adler, Stephan J. 1994. The Jury: Trial and Error in the American Courtroom. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar

Anderson, Kent and Johnson, David T.. 2010. “Japan’s New Criminal Trials: Origins, Operations, and Implications.” In New Courts in Asia, edited by Harding, rew and Nicholson, Penelope (Pip), 371–90. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Anderson, Kent and Nolan, Mark. 2004. “Lay Participation in the Japanese Justice System: A Few Preliminary Thoughts Regarding the Lay Assessor System (saiban-in seido) from Domestic Historical and International Psychological Perspectives.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 37 (4): 935–92.Google Scholar

Bachrach, Peter and Baratz, Morton S.. 1962. “Two Faces of Power.” The American Political Science Review 56: 947–52.Google Scholar

Berlin, Isaiah. 1988. “On the Pursuit of the Ideal.” New York Review of Books. Vol. 35, No. 4 (March 17, 1988), www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1988/mar/17/on-the-pursuit-of-the-ideal/.Google Scholar

Burns, Robert P. 1999. A Theory of the Trial. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Burns, Robert P. 2009. The Death of the American Trial. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Chesterton, G. K. 1909 [2013]. “The Twelve Men,” in Tremendous Trifles. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.Google Scholar

Feeley, Malcolm. 1983. Court Reform on Trial: Why Simple Solutions Fail. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Feeley, Malcolm and Miyazawa, Setsuo, eds. 2002. The Japanese Adversary System in Context: Controversies and Comparisons. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Flyvbjerg, Bent. 1998. Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Foote, Daniel H. 2008. “Justice System Reform in Japan.” Unpublished paper, available at www.reds.msh-paris.fr/communication/docs/foote.pdf.Google Scholar

Foote, Daniel H. 2010. “Policymaking by the Japanese Judiciary in the Criminal Justice Field.” Hoshakaigaku 72: 6–45.Google Scholar

Foote, Daniel H. 2013. “The Trials and Tribulations of Japan’s Law Schools and Bar Exam System.” Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 36: 369–458.Google Scholar

Johnson, David T. 2002. The Japanese Way of Justice: Prosecuting Crime in Japan. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Johnson, David T. 2004. “Nihon ni okeru Shiho Seido Kaikaku: Keisatsu no Shozai to Sono Juyosei” [Justice System Reform in Japan: Where Are the Police and Why It Matters]. Horitsu Jiho 76: 8–15.Google Scholar

Johnson, David T. 2015. “Policing in Japan.” In The Sage Handbook of Modern Japanese Studies, edited by Babb, James, 222–43. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar

Justice System Reform Council. 2001. “Recommendations of the Justice System Reform Council: For A Justice System to Support Japan in the 21st Century.” Accessed April 2, 2017. http://japan.kantei.go.jp/policy/sihou/singikai/990612_e.html.Google Scholar

Kalven Jr., Harry and Zeisel, Hans. 1966. The American Jury. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Langbein, John H. 1978. “Torture and Plea Bargaining.” University of Chicago Law Review 46: 3–22.Google Scholar

Levin, Mark and Tice, Virginia. 2009. “Japan’s New Citizen Judges: How Secrecy Imperils Judicial Reform.” The Asia-Pacific Journal 7 (19): 1–17. Accessed at www.japanfocus.org/-Virginia-Tice/3141.Google Scholar

Miyazawa, Setsuo. 1991. “Administrative Controls of Japanese Judges.” In Law and the Technology in the Pacific Community, edited by Philip, S. C. Lewis, 263–81. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Miyazawa, Setsuo. 1992. Policing in Japan: A Study on Making Crime. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Miyazawa, Setsuo. 2007. “Law Reform, Lawyers, and Access to Justice.” In Japanese Business Law, edited by McAlinn, Gerald Paul, 39–89. The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar

Miyazawa, Setsuo, Chan, Kay-Wah, and Lee, Ilhyung. 2008. “The Reform of Legal Education in East Asia.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 4: 333–61.Google Scholar

Miyazawa, Setsuo. 2013. “Successes, Failures, and Remaining Issues of the Justice System Reform in Japan: An Introduction to the Symposium Issue.” Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 36: 313–48.Google Scholar

Mori, Hono. 2013. Shiho Kenryoku no Uchimaku. Tokyo: Chikuma Shinsho.Google Scholar

Packer, Herbert L. 1968. The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Putnam, Robert. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Ramseyer, Mark J. and Rasmusen, Eric B.. 2003. Measuring Judicial Independence: The Political Economy of Judging in Japan. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ramseyer, Mark J. and Rasmusen, Eric B.. 2015. “Lowering the Bar to Raise the Bar: Licensing Difficulty and Attorney Quality in Japan.” Journal of Japanese Studies 41: 113–42.Google Scholar

Saegusa, Mayumi. 2009. “Why the Japanese Law School System Was Established: Co-optation as a Defensive Tactic in the Face of Global Pressures.” Law & Social Inquiry 34: 365–98.Google Scholar

Saeki, Masahiko. 2010. “Victim Participation in Criminal Trials in Japan.” International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 38: 149–65.Google Scholar

Segi, Hiroshi. 2014. Zetsubo no Saibansho. Tokyo: Kodansha Shinsho.Google Scholar

Fukuda, Taku. 2013. Shikei Haishi Nempo [The Death Penalty Annual]. Tokyo: Impakuto.Google Scholar

Shinomiya, Satoru. 2013. “Saibanin Saiban: Saibanin Seido wa Keiji Jitsumu o Dono yo ni Kaete Iru ka.” Unpublished paper, Kokugakuin University School of Law, Tokyo, March, 1–13.Google Scholar

Supreme Court of Japan. 2012. Saibanin Saiban Jisshi Jokyo no Kensho Hokokusho. Tokyo: Saikosaibansho Jimusokyoku. 1–122.Google Scholar

Takano, Takashi. 2009. “Nihon no Kensatsu wa Hetare na no ka”, in Keiji Saiban o Kangaeru: Takano Takashi@burogu. June 14 and June 23.Google Scholar

Takeda, Masahiro. 2014. “Saibanin Seido Kaishi kara 5nen: Kensatsu wa Taisho Jiken o Shincho ni Kiso: Saibanin Kohosha no Jitairitsu, 60% Koeru.” Journalism (Fall): 136–43.Google Scholar

Vidmar, Neil and Hans, Valerie P.. 2007. American Juries: The Verdict. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar

Yomiuri Shimbun Shakaibu. 2013. Shikei: Kyukoku no Batsu no Shinjitsu. Tokyo: Chuokoron-Shinsha.Google Scholar