Abstract
The Japanese judicial and correctional systems continue to attract interest from different sectors largely owing to their foundation on integration of local and western philosophies, ideas, cultures, and materials. This paper discusses important aspects influencing court proceedings in Japan and highlights important elements of its correctional systems.
Introduction
The Japanese legal and judicial hierarchy is founded on the country’s current constitution. According to the Supreme Court of Japan (2006), the judicial system is largely dependent on three articles: on legislative power that provides for the Diet as the sole law-making body of the state, on executive power that vests the authority in the cabinet, and on judicial power that vests such powers in the Supreme Court and establishment of lower courts by law. It is important to recognize that the Japanese judicial system comprises of the Supreme Court, High Courts, Family Courts, District Courts, and Summary Courts (Supreme Court of Japan, 2006). The courts differ in their constitution in terms of the number of judges, committees, and other personnel, and even structural arrangements that impact court proceedings at different levels. The courts handle cases differently; hence proceedings differ from court to another.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Japanese correctional system is founded on the features of the criminal justice system that comprises of institutions – police, government prosecutors’ offices, courts, and correctional organs – that work collaboratively and in consultation to achieved shared goals of crime reductions and mitigation. Citizens are also encouraged to partake in maintenance of public order and engage extensively in campaigns for prevention of crime, apprehension of suspects, programs for rehabilitation of offenders. In addition, administrators of criminal justice enjoy considerable discretion in dealing with offenders. The link between stakeholders ensures that correctional systems function efficiently right from apprehension of the offender to release after serving their sentence. The connection between court proceedings and correctional system is critical because the latter may inform objective handling of the later. Judgment, an outcome of court proceedings, may be administered based on the effectiveness of the correctional system to yield desired outcomes from offenders.
Court Proceedings
The Japanese judicial system comprises of judges as the lead court personnel. Other court officials include judicial research officers, court clerks, court secretaries, family court probation officers, and court stenographers (Hattori, 1984). Depending on the nature of the case, court officials can influence proceedings in different ways because each has a specific role in the court. For instance, judicial research officers whose responsibility is to conduct research on hearing or adjudication of a case under the instruction of the judges in charge are assigned to courts in large cities such as Tokyo or Osaka where cases are highly complex. The officials comprise lawyers and appointed specialists on industrial property rights or taxes. However, court proceedings are largely influenced by public prosecutors and practicing attorneys and bars associations.
According to Tarr (2013), court proceedings hinge on judicial processes and judicial decision making in relation to trials and appeals, criminal justice, and civil justice. Given that Japan is a civil law country, the processes are governed by statutes that are largely based on laws of other countries including Germany, France, and the US (Iimura, Takabayashi, & Rademacher, 2015). The processes differ in the Japanese unitary court system with each court proceedings informed by the cases in which it has thee jurisdiction. Summary courts are responsible for adjudicating small claims civil cases and minor criminal offences. They are presided over by a single judge and its decisions on civil and criminal cases are appealed to district and high courts respectively. District courts are the first stop for all cases beyond the jurisdiction of Summary courts including felony cases and civil cases with higher dispute value exceeding JPY 1,400,000 (Iimura, Takabayashi, & Rademacher, 2015). Trials at District courts are presided over by at least one (career) judge. In instances of cases involving substantial amounts of money, appellate cases from Summary courts, or criminal cases with a maximum penalty exceeding one-year imprisonment, a three judge panel is needed. Decisions from this court are appealed in the High court located with its circuit.
Japanese High courts serve as appellate level courts. Japan has eight high court circuits. Trials in these courts are presided over by panels of three career judges. The Supreme Court handles cases appealed from High courts. The Japanese Supreme Court operates in a similar manner to the US Supreme Court by allowing only a fraction of the cases to be reviewed. The implication is that differences in certain detail about interpretation and application of the law by High Courts are minimal. In all the courts, practicing attorneys form a critical component of the proceedings because they are responsible for handling civil and criminal cases, litigation or non-litigation cases, appeals filed against administrative authorities, and other legal duties as requested by the concerned parties.
Correctional System
The Japanese correctional systems underwent significant transformation following recognition of the Japanese culture by the world in the latter half of the 19 th century. The influx of philosophies, ideas, and materials of the western world established a trend that was inevitably followed by Japanese prisons towards westernization. According to Yanagimoto (1970) the process culminated in the building of the western-influenced prison at Miyagi in 1879. Gillin (1928) observed that years of learning from the western world led to adoption of a largely English prison system with some American features in the Japanese prison law. The Japanese system has four kinds of prisons: prison for penal servitude; prison for imprisonment; the house of detention; and the prison for confinement (Gillin, 1928). The first prison borrows from the English systems and is for offenders sentenced to penal servitude. The second caters for less serious offenders sentenced to imprisonment, while the third is for similar offenders sentenced to detention. The fourth is used for confinement of the accused awaiting trial, those under death sentence, or temporarily those in the first three cases.
The Japanese system has special institutions for youthful offenders, well separated from adult convicts. Male and female convicts are separated and in instances where the four types of prisons are found together, they must exist as separate institutions. According to the Japanese Ministry of Justice, the Correction Bureau is mandated to look into matters relating to treatment of inmates. The mandate covers areas such as security, prison work, classification, education, hygiene, and medical treatment among others. The bureau is also responsible for planning and drafting of correctional legislation, organization and management of correctional institutions, and international transfers of convicts. Currently, the Japanese correctional system has penal institutions comprising of prisons, juvenile prisons, and detention houses; juvenile classification homes for those referred by family and under protective measures order by the court; women guidance homes; and juvenile training schools. The modernization of Japanese correctional systems has attracted positive criticism from international human rights watchdogs.
Conclusion
It is imperative to point out that the Japanese judicial system borrows some of its aspects from western countries, but Japan has a unique unitary court system. However, court proceedings are influenced by the cases under the jurisdiction of the respective courts, judges, and attorneys involved in the trial. Similarly, Japanese correctional are built from the blueprint of the west. The prison systems are classified depending on the nature of sentences and offences. Nevertheless, the Correctional Bureau has been central to the transformation of the Japanese correctional systems to meet international standards.
References
Gillin, J. L. (1928). Japan's Prison System. Social Forces , 177-189.
Hattori, T. (1984). The role of the Supreme Court of Japan in the field of judicial administration. Wash. L. Rev. , 60 , 69.
Iimura, T., Takabayashi, R., & Rademacher, C. (2015). The binding nature of court decisions in Japan’s civil law system. Stanford Law School. Commentary No. 14. Retrieved 24/11/2017 from: https://cgc.law.stanford.edu/commentaries/14-iimura-takabayashi-rademacher/.
Tarr, G. A. (2013). Judicial process and judicial policymaking . Cengage Learning.
The Supreme Court of Japan. (2006). Court system of Japan. Retrieved 24/11/2017 from: http://www.courts.go.jp/english/judicial_sys/Court_System_of_Japan/index.html.
Yanagimoto, M. (1970). Some features of the Japanese prison system. The British Journal of Criminology , 10 (3), 209-224.
