Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:46:25.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of the Jury Systems in Asia: A Comparison of Korea and Japan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2019

Jae-Hyup LEE  and
Jisuk WOO
Jae-Hyup LEE
Affiliation:
Seoul National University, Republic of [email protected]@snu.ac.kr
Jisuk WOO
Affiliation:
Seoul National University, Republic of [email protected]@snu.ac.kr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article compares the Korean and Japanese jury systems, evaluating the performance of jury trials as reflected in empirical studies in these countries, and identifying some innovative practices in Korean and Japanese systems that can be adopted by other jurisdictions. This comparative study of Korean and Japanese jury systems will also address common problems and investigate different approaches to those problems. At this juncture, numerous existing empirical studies conducted in both countries provide a good framework for comparison. Although jury trials are firmly entrenched within the Korean and Japanese legal systems, there are several common challenges faced by each country that uses lay juries: avoidance of bias, judicial oversight and intervention for reasoned decision-making, importance of rationality in the jury deliberation process, etc. A careful analysis of the Korean and Japanese experiences will provide useful guidance to not only policymakers in Asia but also criminal justice scholars around the world.

Type
Article
Information
Asian Journal of Comparative Law , Volume 14 , Supplement S1 , October 2019 , pp. S77 - S96
Copyright
Copyright © National University of Singapore, 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.)

Footnotes

*

Professor, School of Law, Seoul National University. First author.

†

Professor, Graduate School of Public Administration, Seoul National University. Corresponding author.

This article was supported by the Asia-Pacific Law Institute of Seoul National University in 2019. Our thanks to the Centre for Asian Legal Studies (CALS) and the Asian Law Institute (ASLI) at the National University of Singapore (NUS) for supporting my participation at the conferences entitled ‘The State of Comparative Law in Asia’ and ‘Teaching Comparative Law in Asia’ on 27 and 28 September 2017 which led to this article and this Special Issue.

References

1. Vidmar, Neil (ed), World Jury Systems (OUP 2000) 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. The modern Korean legal system was heavily influenced by Japan, which in turn largely incorporated the German system: Choi, Chongko, Law and Justice in Korea: South and North (Seoul National University Press 2005) 155Google Scholar.

3. Paramount among these reform measures for both countries is the introduction of American-style law schools and civil participation in judicial decision-making: see generally Choi, Dai-Kwon and Rokumoto, Kahei (eds), Judicial System Transformation in the Globalizing World: Korea and Japan (Seoul National University Press 2007)Google Scholar.

4. Gukminui hyeongsajaepan chamyeoe gwanhan beopryul (국민의 형사재판 참여에 관한 법률) [Act for Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials], (promulgated by the National Assembly, 1 June 2007, effective 1 January 2008), Law No 8495, art 1(1) [hereinafter the Jury Act]. An unofficial English translation can be obtained at the Korea Legal Research Institute's English homepage <http://elaw.klri.re.kr/kor_service/lawView.do?hseq=46745&lang=ENG> accessed 4 February 2019.

5. Lee, Jae-Hyup, ‘Getting Citizens Involved: Civil Participation in Judicial Decision-Making in Korea’ (2009) 4 East Asia Law Review 177Google Scholar.

6. In Han, Sup, ‘Hangukui Baesimweonjaepan: junbigwajeong-gwa sihaeng-wonnyeon-ui seong-gwaleul geomtohanda (한국의 배심원 재판: 준비과정과 시행원년의 성과를 검토한다) [Criminal Jury Trials in Korea: Issues and Initial Experiments]’ (2009) 50 Seouldaehakkyo Beophak (서울대학교 법학) [Seoul Law Journal] 681, 693Google Scholar.

7. Fukurai, Hiroshi, ‘The Rebirth of Japan's Petit Quasi-Jury and Grand Jury Systems: A Cross-National Analysis of Legal Consciousness and the Lay Participatory Experience in Japan and the U.S.’ (2007) 40 Cornell International Law Journal 315, 321Google Scholar.

8. Fukurai, Hiroshi, ‘Comparative Analysis of Popular Legal Participation in Japan and the U.S.: Differential Perceptions of Actual Jurors and College Students on the System of Lay Participation in Law’ (2009) 33 International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 37, 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Miyazawa, Setsuo, ‘Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials in Japan: The Saiban-in System and Victim Participation in Japan in International Perspectives’ (2014) 42 International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 71, 74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. Lempert, Richard O, ‘The Internationalization of Lay Legal Decision-Making: Jury Resurgence and Jury Research’ (2007) 40 Cornell International Law Journal 477, 483Google Scholar; Croydon, Silvia A, ‘Returning a Verdict on the Jury: How the Japanese Have Reacted to the Introduction of a Lay Judge System’ (2012) 7 Asian Journal of Comparative Law 1, 6–8Google Scholar.

11. Park, Mi Suk and others, Hyeongsajeongchaeggwa sabeobgaehyeog-e gwanhan josaㆍyeongu mich pyeong-ga (II): Gukminchamyeojaepane daehan chamgwanmit josayeongu (형사정책과 사법개혁에 관한 조사ㆍ연구 및 평가(II) : 국민참여재판에 대한 참관 및 조사연구) [Studies on Criminal Justice Policies and Judicial Reforms (II): A Study on Jury Trial System in Korea] (Korean Institute of Criminology 2008) 44Google Scholar.

12. Ahn, Kyong-Whan, ‘Beopjjoinui insajedo (법조인의 인사제도) [Personnel Management in the Legal Profession]’ in Seoul National University College of Law (ed), Beomnyulgaui yulliwa chaegim (법률가의 윤리와 책임) [Ethics and Responsibilities of the Legal Profession] (Pakyoungsa (박영사) 2003) 192, 196Google Scholar.

13. A preliminary empirical study on so-called jeongwanyeu phonemona was conducted in Hansoo Choi, ‘Quantifying the Impact of the Revolving Door: Evidence from South Korea's Judiciary’ (2015) Edmond J Safra Working Papers, No 65 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2612215> accessed 4 February 2019.

14. Hyeongsa sosongbeop (형사소송법) [Criminal Procedure Code], (promulgated by the National Assembly, 23 September 1954, effective 30 May 1954), Law No 341, (amended 6 January 2016 as Law No 13720) [hereinafter the CPC].

15. Saiban-in no sanka-suru keiji saiban ni kansuru hōritsu (裁判員の参加する刑事裁判に関する法律) [Act on Criminal Trials with the Participation of Saiban-in] Act No 63 of 28 May 2004 [hereinafter Saiban-in Act], art 1, translated in Anderson, Kent and Saint, Emma, ‘Japan's Quasi-Jury (Saiban-in) Law: An Annotated Translation of the Act Concerning Participation of Lay Assessors in Criminal Trials’ (2005) 6(1) Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal 233, 236Google Scholar; see also Kano, Kaori and Steele, Stacey Leanne, ‘Japan's Lay Judge System (Saiban-in Seido) and Legislative Developments: Annotated Translation of the Act Amending the Act on Criminal Trials with Participation of Saiban-in’ (2016) 17 Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal 1Google Scholar.

16. Inouye, Masahito, ‘Introduction of the Saiban-in System and Reformation of Criminal Procedure in Japan’ (2014) 55 Seouldaehakkyo Beophak (서울대학교 법학) [Seoul Law Journal] 441, 445Google Scholar.

17. Tanibe, Tetsushi, Shiraiwa, Yuko and Karasawa, Kaori, ‘Opposition to Popular Legal Participation and the Reason-Emotion Framework: Empirical Research on Citizens’ Attitudes toward the Lay Judge System in Japan’ (2016) 14 Journal of Human Environmental Studies 9, 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18. Fukurai, ‘Comparative Analysis of Popular Legal Participation in Japan and the U.S.’ (n 8) 55.

19. Goto, Akira, ‘Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials in Japan’ (2014) 42(2) International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 117, 123CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20. ibid 120.

21. Foote, Daniel H, ‘Citizen Participation: Appraising the Saiban'in System’ (2014) 22 Michigan State International Law Review 755, 765; Inouye (n 16) 471Google Scholar.

22. Jury Act, art 5(2).

23. ibid art 46(5).

24. The Constitution of the Republic of Korea 1987, art 27(1) gives one the right to be tried by a judge.

25. Jury Act, art 5(1).

26. ibid art 13(1).

27. Each party may exercise peremptory challenges five times when nine jurors are selected, four when seven jurors are selected, and three when five jurors are selected: ibid art 30(1).

28. ibid art 41(1).

29. ibid art 41(2).

30. ibid art 58.

31. ibid art 51.

32. ibid art 46(2).

33. ibid art 46(3).

34. ibid.

35. ibid art 46(4).

36. Han, Sang Hoon, ‘Ibbeobdonghyangbunseog: Gukminui hyeongsajaepanchamyeojedo ipbeopnonui (입법동향분석: 국민의 형사재판참여제도 입법논의) [Analysis: Recent Discussions on the Introduction of Lay Participation in Criminal Trials in Korea]’ (2006) 30 Beopgwa Sahoe (법과 사회) [Law & Society] 303, 313Google Scholar.

37. Jury Act, art 46(4).

38. Han (n 6) 686.

39. Saiban-in Act, arts 2(i) and 2(ii).

40. Inouye (n 16) 450.

41. Saiban-in Act, art 2(2).

42. ibid art 36.

43. ibid art 6.

44. ibid art 67(1).

45. Goto (n 19) 118.

46. Saiban-in Act, art 9(2).

47. Goto (n 19) 126.

48. Gukmingwa hamggyehaneun sabeopbaljeonwoiweonhoi [Committee on Judicial Development], ‘Gukmin-ui sabeopchamyeo hwakdae mit gangwha (국민의 사법참여확대 및 강화) [Expansion and Enhancement of Civil Judicial Participation]’ (Gukmingwa hamggyehaneun sabeopbaljeonwoiweonhoi (국민과 함께하는 사법발전위원회) [Committee on Judicial Development] 15 May 2018) 2 (on file with author).

49. ibid 7.

50. ibid 6.

51. Beopweonhaengjeongcheo [National Court Administration], ‘Gukmin chamyeojaepan seonggwa bunseok (국민 참여재판 성과 분석) [An Analysis of the Performance of the Civil Participation Trials]’ (Beopweonhaengjeongcheo (법원행정처) [National Court Administration] 2008-2015) 19 (on file with author).

52. Committee on Judicial Development (n 48) 37.

53. National Court Administration (n 51) 25.

54. ibid 26.

55. Committee on Judicial Development (n 48) 10.

56. ibid 8.

57. It has been observed the sentencing gap between the judge and the jury narrows during the course of sentencing deliberation. ibid 30.

58. Committee on Judicial Development (n 48) 56.

59. Lee, Jae-Hyup and others, ‘What's Happening in the Jury Room? – Analyzing Shadow Jury Deliberations in Korea’ (2013) 13 Journal of Korean Law 41, 54Google Scholar.

60. Decision of the Supreme Court of Korea, 25 March 2010, Seongo 2009Do14605.

61. Lee, Hyung Min, Cho, Young Il, and Lee, Seong-Ki, ‘Divided Public Opinion on the Jury Trial System of South Korea: An Exploratory Analysis of the Effects of Ideological Orientation and Partisan News Media Exposure’ (2017) 48 Korea Observer 249, 269Google Scholar.

62. National Court Administration (n 51) 38-39.

63. Seoul Jungangjibangbeopweon, ‘Gukminchamyeojaepan geurimjabaesim chamyeo annaemun (국민참여재판 그림자배심 참여안내문) [A Guide to the Shadow Jury Program]’ (Seoul Jungangjibangbeopweon (서울중앙지방법원) [Seoul Central District Court] January 2014) (on file with the author).

64. See In Sup Han and Sang Hoon Han, ‘Gukminui sabeopchamyeo (국민의 사법참여) [Civil Participation in Judicial Decision-making]’ (Gyeonginmunhwasa (경인문화사) 2010).

65. Joongang Ilbo, ‘Gukminchamyeojaepan, pihaeja beopjeong seomyeon baesimweondeuli… (국민참여재판, 피해자 법정 서면 배심원들이…) [Participatory Trial, When the Victim Stands on the Trial, the Juries…]’ JoongAng Ilbo (Seoul, 7 September 2012) <https://news.joins.com/article/9260810> accessed 4 February 2019.

66. ibid.

67. Jury Act, art 55.

68. Lee, Dong-Hee, ‘Gukminchamyeojaepanui seonggwawa gwaje (국민참여재판의 성과와 과제) [The Achievements and Challenges of the Citizen Participatory Trial in Korea]’ (2015) 146 Jeostis (저스티스) [Justice] 69, 71Google Scholar.

69. ibid.

70. ibid.

71. Fujita, Masahiro, Japanese Society and Lay Participation in Criminal Justice: Social Attitudes, Trust, and Mass Media (Springer 2018) 30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72. Shozo Ota, ‘People's Attitude Toward Lay Judge System in Japan: Are There Any Changes After 5-Year Operation?’ (Third International Conference on Empirical Studies of Judicial Systems, Academia Sinica, Taipei, 5–6 September 2014).

73. National Court Administration (n 51) 25.

74. Goto (n 19) 119.

75. Goto (n 19) 118.

76. Foote (n 21) 774.

77. Saikō Saibansho Dai-ichi Shōhōtei Hanketsu [Supreme Court, First Petty Bench, Judgment] 24 July 2014, 68(6) Keishū 925 (a case involving a bodily injury that resulted in death of a child by parents’ abuse) (Japan).

78. ibid.

79. Ota, Shozo, ‘Ippanjin ga saiban-in ni naru ito─ dōnyū mae to dōnyūgo no hikaku (一般人が裁判員になる意図─ 導入前と導入後の比較) [People's Intention to Become Saiban-in: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Introduction]’ in Matsumura, Yoshiyuki, Manako, Kinoshita and Ota, Shozo (eds), Nihonjin kara mita saiban'inseido (日本人から見た裁判員制度) [The Lay Judge System as Seen by the Japanese People] (Keisoshobo (勁草書房) 2015) 31, 33–34Google Scholar.

80. Ota, ‘People's Attitude Toward Lay Judge System in Japan’ (n 72) 18–19.

81. Fujita (n 71) 84.

82. Inouye (n 16) 432.

83. Goto (n 19) 124.

84. Ota, ‘People's Attitude Toward Lay Judge System in Japan’ (n 72) 13.

85. Kinoshita Manako, ‘Ippanjin kara mita saiban'inseido ─ dōnyū mae to dōnyūgo no hikaku (一般人から見た裁判員制度─導入前と導入後の比較) [The Saiban-in System as Seen by Ordinary People: A Pre- and Post-Introduction Comparison]’ in Matsumura, Manako and Ota (n 79) 45, 62.

86. ibid 33.

87. Ota, ‘Ippanjin ga saiban-in ni naru ito─ dōnyū mae to dōnyūgo no hikaku (一般人が裁判員になる意図─ 導入前と導入後の比較) [People's Intention to Become Saiban-in: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Introduction]’ (n 79).

88. Supreme Court, First Petty Bench, Judgment 13 February 2012, 66(4) Keishū 482 (Japan).

89. Kalven, Harry Jr and Zeisel, Hans, The American Jury (University of Chicago Press 1971) 106–11Google Scholar.

90. Kim, Sangjoon and others, ‘Judge-Jury Agreement in Criminal Cases: The First Three Years of the Korean Jury System’ (2013) 10 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 35, 42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91. Park, Kwang B, Kim, Sang Joon and Han, Mi Young, ‘Gasangjeokin jaepan jaengjeomeseoui hyeonyeokpansaui pandangwa mouibaesimui jipdanpandane daehan injijeok bangryakui hyogwa (가상적인 재판 쟁점에서의 현역판사의 판단과 모의배심의 집단판단에 대한 인지적 방략의 효과) [Effects of Cognitive Heuristics on the Decisions of Actual Judges and Mock Jury Groups for Simulated Trial Issues]’ (2005) 11 Hanguksimrihakhoiji: munhwa mich sahoimunje (한국심리학회지: 문화 및 사회문제) [Korean Journal of Culture and Social Issues] 59, 79–80Google Scholar.

92. Kim, Sangjoon, Ahn, Jeong-Ho and Park, Kwangbai, ‘Yujoigyeoljeong gijune gwanhan siljeunggwahakjeok jeopgeun (유죄결정 기준에 관한 실증과학적 접근) [Empirical Approach Toward the Standard of Proof for Criminal Trials]’ (2013) 4 Hanguksimrihakhoiji: beopjeong (한국심리학회지: 법정) [The Korean Journal of Forensic Psychology] 83, 99Google Scholar.

93. Taxquet v Belgium (2012) 54 EHRR 26.

94. Thaman, Stephen C, ‘Should Criminal Juries Give Reasons for Their Verdicts?: The Spanish Experience and the Implications of the European Court of Human Rights Decision in Taxquet v. Belgium’ (2011) 86 Chicago-Kent Law Review 613, 618Google Scholar.

95. Hong, Soo Min, Lee, Soo Jung, and Lee, Jung Hun, ‘Gukminchamyeojaepane itseoseo imuimyeongjeonge daehan baesimweondangwa beopgwanui pandan chai yeongu (국민참여재판에 있어서 임의명정에 대한 배심원단과 법관의 판단 차이 연구) [A Comparative Study on Sentences of Judge and Jury in Voluntary Intoxication Defence Cases in Korea]’ (2013) 27(4) Hanguksimrihakhoeji: Sahoi mit seonggyeok (한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격) [Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology] 69, 83Google Scholar.

96. Matsuo, Kayo and Itoh, Yuji, ‘Effects of Emotional Testimony and Gruesome Photographs on Mock Jurors’ Decisions and Negative Emotions’ (2016) 23 Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 85, 95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

97. Hans, Valerie P, ‘The Impact of Victim Participation in Saiban-in Trials in Japan: Insights from the American Jury Experience’ (2014) 42 International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 103, 104CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

98. Tanibe, Shiraiwa and Karasawa (n 17) 11, citing Maeda Masahide and others, ‘Ryōkei ni kansuru Kokumin to Saibankan no Ishiki nit suite no Kenkyū: Satsujin-zai no Ji'an wo Sozai toshite (量刑に関する国民と裁判官の意識についての研究：殺人罪の事案を素材として) [A Study of Citizens’ and Professional Judges’ Opinions about Sentence: Using Murder Cases as Materials]’ (The Legal Training and Research Institute of Japan, February 2007).

99. Fukurai, Hiroshi and Kurosawa, Kaoru, ‘Impact of the Popular Legal Participation on Forced Confessions and Wrongful Convictions in Japan's Bureaucratic Courtroom: A Cross-National Analysis in the U.S. and Japan’ (2010) 7(7) US-China Law Review 1, 16Google Scholar.

100. For studies in the US, see Severance, Lawrence J, Greene, Edith and Loftus, Elizabeth F, ‘Toward Criminal Jury Instructions that Jurors Can Understand’ (1984) 75 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 198CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wiener, Richard L, Pritchard, Christine C and Weston, Minda, ‘Comprehensibility of Approved Jury Instructions in Capital Murder Cases’ (1995) 80 Journal of Applied Psychology 455CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

101. Park and others (n 11) 44.

102. ibid 260–62.

103. Oh, Gidu, ‘Baesimwonui pandanneungryeok: gwayeon geu neunglyeog-eul uisimhaeseo baesimje doib-eul bujeonghal geos-inga? (배심원의 판단능력: 과연 그 능력을 의심해서 배심제 도입을 부정할 것인가?) [The Ability of Juries to Find Fact]’ (2007) 96 Jeostis (저스티스) [Justice] 124, 133Google Scholar.

104. Kim, Jong-Dae, Lee, Eun-Lo and Han, Sang-Hoon, ‘“Haprijeok uisimui yeoji eopneun jeungmyeong” gijune daehan baesimwonui ihaedo yeongu (‘합리적 의심의 여지 없는 증명’ 기준에 대한 배심원의 이해도 연구) [Study on Mock Juror's Understanding of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard]’ (2011) 21 Beophakyeongu (법학연구) [Yonsei Law Review] 1, 24Google Scholar.

105. Lee, Yoon Jung and Jo, Eunk Yung, ‘Haprijeok uisim eopneun jeungmyeongweonchikui jisimun yuhyeonggwa sunseodo sayongi baesimweondeului ihaedowa pyeonggyeole michineun yeonghyang (합리적 의심 없는 증명원칙의 지시문 유형과 순서도 사용이 배심원들의 이해도와 평결에 미치는 영향) [Effects of ‘Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’ Instruction Types and Use of Question Trail Flowchart on Juror's Comprehension and Verdict]’ (2014) 28(4) Hanguksaheisimrihakhoiji: Sahoi mit seonggyeok (한국사회심리학회지: 사회 및 성격) [Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology] 71, 85Google Scholar.

106. Park, Kwang P and others, ‘Hyeongsabaesim pyeonguieseoui sahoijeok dongjowa injijeok jeonhyang: hanguk choichoui siminbaesim mouijaepanui pyeonguie daehan naeyongbunseok (형사배심 평의에서의 사회적 동조와 인저적 전향: 한국 최초의 시민배심 모의재판의 평의에 대한 내용분석) [Social Conformity and Cognitive Conversion During Jury Deliberations: A Content Analysis of Deliberation Arguments in the First Officially Simulated Jury Trial in Korea]’ (2005) 19(3) Hanguksimrihakhoiji sahoi mit seonggyeok (한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격) [Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology] 1, 6Google Scholar.

107. ibid 7.

108. ibid 14, 16.

109. Lee and others (n 59) 67.

110. Lee, Jae-Hyup and Woo, Jisuk, ‘Judge-Jury Interaction in Deliberation: Enhancement or Obstruction of Independent Jury Decision-Making?’ (2016) 6 Oñati Socio-Legal Series 179, 185Google Scholar.

111. Jisuk Woo, Junewoong Rhee and Jae-Hyup Lee, ‘The Effects of Trial Procedure Factors and Deliberation Factors on Shadow Juror's Perceptions about the Fairness of Jury Trials in Korea’ (Third International Conference on Empirical Studies of Judicial Systems, Academia Sinica, Taipei, 5–6 September 2014).

112. See eg Marder, Nancy S, ‘Juries, Justice, and Multiculturalism’ (2002) 75 Southern California Law Review 659Google Scholar; Sommers, Samuel R, ‘On Racial Diversity and Group Decision Making: Identifying Multiple Effects of Racial Composition on Jury Deliberations’ (2006) 90 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 597CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

113. Woo, Jisuk and Levinson, Justin D, ‘Diversity, Dialogue, and Deliberation: An Empirical Investigation of Age, Gender, and Meaningful Decision-Making in Korean Juries’ (2017) 19(1) Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal 23, 46Google Scholar.

114. Dann, B Michael and Hans, Valerie P, ‘Recent Evaluative Research on Jury Trial Innovations’ (2004) 41(1) Court Review 12, 13Google Scholar.

115. Comiskey, Marie, ‘Tempest in a Teapot – The Role of the Decision Tree in Enhancing Juror Comprehension and Whether It Interferes with the Jury's Right to Deliberate Freely?’ (2016) 6 Oñati Socio-Legal Series 255, 258Google Scholar.

116. A sample juror's guide can be found in Hans, Valerie P, ‘Reflections on the Korean Jury Trial’ (2014) 14 Journal of Korean Law 81, 99–115Google Scholar.

117. ibid 85.

118. Bavelas, Alex and others, ‘Experiments on the Alteration of Group Structure’ (1965) 1 Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 55, 59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

119. York, Erin and Cornwell, Benjamin, ‘Status on Trial: Social Characteristics and Influence in the Jury Room’ (2006) 85(1) Social Forces 455, 464CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

120. Antonio, Michael E and Hans, Valerie P, ‘Race and the Civil Jury: How Does a Juror's Race Shape the Jury Experience?’ in Roesch, Ronald, Corrado, Raymond R and Dempster, Rebecca (eds), Psychology in the Courts: International Advances in Knowledge (Routledge 2001) 69, 79Google Scholar.

121. Lee and others (n 59) 63.

122. Fujita, Masahiro and Hotta, Syugo, ‘The Impact of Differential Information Between Lay Participants and Professional Judges on Deliberative Decision-making’ (2010) 38(4) International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 216, 217CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

123. ibid.

124. Lee and Woo (n 110) 193.

125. Shozo Ota, ‘Hyōgi no arikata ni tsuite (評議の在り方について) [Desirable Attitude of Deliberation]’ in Matsumura, Manako and Ota (n 79) 81, 85–87.

126. ibid.

127. Jimeno-Bulnes, Mar and Hans, Valerie P, ‘Legal Interpreter for the Jury: The Role of the Clerk of the Court in Spain’ (2016) 6 Oñati Socio-Legal Series 197Google Scholar.

128. de Tocqueville, Alexis, Democracy in America (Mansfield, Harvey C and Winthrop, Delba trs, University of Chicago Press 2000) 96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

129. Gastil, John and others, The Jury and Democracy: How Jury Deliberation Promotes Civic Engagement and Political Participation (OUP 2010) 101Google Scholar.

130. Yanase, Noboru, ‘Deliberative Democracy and the Japanese Saiban-in (Lay Judge) Trial System’ (2016) 3 Asian Journal of Law and Society 327, 344–45Google Scholar.

131. Vanoverbeke, Dimitri, Juries in the Japanese Legal System (Routledge 2015) 179CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

132. Croydon (n 10) 9–11.

133. Lee and others (n 59) 44.

134. For an introduction to the lay participation system in Taiwan, see Huang, Kuo-Chang and Lin, Chang-Ching, ‘Rescuing Confidence in the Judicial System: Introducing Lay Participation in Taiwan’ (2013) 10 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 542CrossRefGoogle Scholar.