The Reality of Deliberations in Japanese Saiban-in Trials: An Analysis of Professional Judges’ Questions in Response to Lay Judges’ Opinions

Abstract

The Japanese Saiban-in system engages ordinary citizens in criminal trials as lay judges alongside professional judges. Within this system, lay and professional judges collaborate to examine the evidence and, when necessary, determine the appropriate punishment in order to reach a verdict. This study explores some realities that professional and lay judges experience in the deliberation, particularly focusing on the sequence in which lay judges express their opinion and are subsequently questioned by a professional judge. The analysis reveals three key differences in orientation between professional and lay judges: 1) their approach to evaluating claims made by the parties to the trial, 2) the relationship between expressed opinions and the reasoning behind them, and 3) the sequencing of discussions during deliberations. Professional judges guide lay judges toward the orientations of the professional judges by asking questions or seeking confirmation. These interactions reflect the professional judges’ strategies for addressing the practical challenges of facilitating deliberations in a mixed-judge panel.