[Sinestra]

I see why the Japanese chose the old system and kept in place for so long "if its not broken dont fix it" but it seem some think it is broken or at least limping. However being judged by ones peers is considered essential in a democracy. I think its a good idea for Japan to tweek their legal system if THEY feel its unfair or not working. Nothing wrong with trying something new especially if it works more smoothly than the previous system. Then again i feel some of the legal experts are right. Most people dont have the stones to sit in on a murder trial where you possibly have to decide if someone lives or dies for their crimes.

Lets see how this plays out. Is the general public even interested in changing the system? does it affect them that much or are the complaints about unfairness mainly from foreigners and foreign countries?


Ronin4hire in response to your question "I suppose my biggest question is why trial by jury is considered a better system?"

I believe because some feel trial by jury is less prone to interference such as bribes and intimidation. Which is why here in the US when a jury is selected for a high profile case they are basically removed from society. They dont go home and cant talk to anyone about the case they stay in special hotels together with no visitors. This way they are not influenced by outside elements. Only the evidence thats presented in court and i think they dont even have tv.

When you have say a panel of 3 judges who makes the finally ruling. Its easier to bribe them or sway their opinion with intimidation. A judge is suppose to be impartial but thats impossible for us meer humans even a jury has their own preconceptions or biases but when you put several people on a jury it kind of evens out. Each system has their own advantages and disadvantages.