Japan executes first man convicted by citizen judges

"Japan on Friday carried out the first execution of a man who had been convicted by lay judges"

Full news report here

The system of "trail by jury" was reinstated in Japan in 2009. It was initially introduced in 1928 and then abolished in 1943.

There are so many variables to consider and yet Japan claims that it worked during a two year period of mock trials.

Imagine if this was introduced into your own country along with capital punishment. Would you be for it or against it?

Personally I would refuse to serve as a juror and face the consequences. Rather that than potentially be part responsible for someone else's death

a reply to: deliberator

Maybe he should'nt have killed 3 people in 2009.

I'd prefer it if an option was giving to one of the victims family members to pull a trigger.

Any time you show up for jury duty you have no idea what is in store for you. It could be a simple case of robbery or a grand jury. It could be anything, and the end result could be severe. But, its your civic duty to do it. You pay attention, you deliberate, and you decide. And after all that, it gets appealed anyway and ends up being someone else's responsibility. Of course, there is always the chance that you end up on the appeal jury rather than the initial trial. I have been called for jury duty twice and it was nothing major but that doesn't matter. It was my civic duty and I won't ask someone else to do something I am capable of doing myself.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I asked a hypothetical question. I have no problem with jury duty in the real world. We don't have capital punishment in the UK.

I have changed my OP and put capital punishment in the scenario.

originally posted by: deliberator
a reply to: Vroomfondel

I asked a hypothetical question. I have no problem with jury duty in the real world. We don't have capital punishment in the UK.

Unfortunately, the "real world" includes people who kill other people. So here's another hypothetical question for you: What if the people killed were your daughter and spouse and there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever concerning the killer's guilt? Are you telling us that a person who killed your loved ones deserves to live?

a reply to: schuyler

I cannot answer that question as I have not been in that situation. Are we are talking about justice or revenge?

Ten years ago my ex-partner was attacked in the street by two teenagers (17 and 18) resulting in serious injury.

I cannot remember thinking they should receive the same punishment. I do remember thinking they should be locked up and the key thrown away.

They were both given a custodial sentence of 8 years.

a reply to: deliberator

yea, most cant differentiate revenge and justice.

to some, if a family member gets killed some people automatically become killers themselves. or justify the same act that is giving them grievance.
in a world where everyone thought a like, we would never stop killing the next person. as everyone would want to avenge the death of their loved ones.

a reply to: deliberator

I am against the death penalty for personal reasons and the fact that the appeals process costs more than to feed and house a prisoner for life.

I am definitely against any such proceeding being presided over by a 'lay judge'.

originally posted by: deliberator
a reply to: schuyler

I cannot answer that question as I have not been in that situation. Are we are talking about justice or revenge?

So you're avoiding it. You make a distinction between "justice" and "revenge," but is there one, or is that just a mythical dichotomy? I mean, you say "revenge" like it's a bad thing. When we send someone to prison for an arbitrary number of years, is that not also "revenge" for the crimes they have committed? It's not like we turn these people into honest citizens who will be toe the line when they are released. Prison is about neither rehabilitation nor justice. It may get some of the worst off the streets for a few years, but that's not justice either; it's pure punishment.

a reply to: schuyler
If anyone hurt my family it wouldnt be jail they would get.

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
a reply to: schuyler
If anyone hurt my family it wouldnt be jail they would get.

And THAT'S why we have a court system, to keep people like you from exerting their independent brand of justice.

a reply to: schuyler
fair comment,still doesnt change my opinion.If someone hurt my family,purposfully,they will be hurt in return....simple really.

a reply to: schuyler

I did not avoid answering the question. I thought I answered you and gave you as close an experience as possible.

Social justice is punishment but is also aimed at protecting the public.

I think this articulates the difference between social justice and revenge.

Social Justice: rational, impartial , vindicative , closure and restoration

Revenge : emotional, personal, vindictive , retaliatory

Just out of interest, do you support capital punishment for all serious crimes or just murder?

a reply to: hiddenNZ

So you would kill someone who was mentally ill eg paranoid schizophrenia?

a reply to: deliberator

to put it simply....yup/Sorry if that offends you.

originally posted by: schuyler
What if the people killed were your daughter and spouse and there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever concerning the killer's guilt? Are you telling us that a person who killed your loved ones deserves to live?

Well yes he does...long sentence where I pay inmate Buba's family 500 per month to rape him daily and when he gets out and thinks life is getting better then he dies...so simple.