Abstract
In this paper, we give our viewpoints for a comparative review of discussions on the significance of the Saiban-in system, analyzing data from mock trials. First, we review discussions on the Saiban-in system. Two conflicting viewpoints have often been argued―“the democratic grounding for the criminal law system” and “enhancing public understanding and confidence in the system.” Second, we present some forms of utterances in which lay judges give their opinions using their common sense. We pay special attention to membership categories used by lay judges for self and other identification when giving their opinion. We show that there are multiple ways of interpreting the idea of the Saiban-in system, “reflecting the public’s sound common sense on criminal justice.” We then argue that the assessment of the significance of the system is intricately linked with the assessment of the forms of the lay judge’s utterances. Therefore, in conclusion, we need a coherent institutional design that can adequately lead a lay judge’s concrete activities so that the idea of the Saiban-in system is transparent to the public.
