Судебная система Японии: от присяжных к участию граждан в суде.

A system for trial by jury was first introduced in 1923 under Prime Minister Katō Tomosaburō's administration. Although the system generated relatively high acquittal rates, it was rarely used, in part because it required defendants to give up their rights to appeal the factual determinations made. The system lapsed by the end of World War II. In 2009, as a part of a larger judicial reform project, laws came into force to introduce citizen participation in certain criminal trials by introducing lay judges. Lay judges comprise the majority of the judicial panel. They do not form a jury separate from the judges, as in a common law system, but participate in the trial as inquisitorial judges next to professional judges in accordance with the civil law legal tradition – similar to the French cour d'assises – who actively analyze and investigate evidence presented by the defense and prosecution.

On May 28, 2004, the National Diet passed a law requiring selected citizens to participate as judges (and not juries) in trials for certain severe crimes. Citizens chosen for such service, called "saiban in" (裁判員), are randomly selected out of the electoral register and, together with professional judges, conduct a public investigation of the evidence in order to determine guilt and sentences. In most cases, the judicial panel is composed of six saiban in and three professional judges. In cases where there is no substantial dispute over guilt, the panel is composed of four saiban in and one professional judge. Unlike under the older jury system, the defendants are not allowed to waive trial by saiban in. The saiban in system was implemented in May 2009.

As in most common law countries where people are reluctant to serve as jury members, many Japanese have expressed reluctance to serve as lay judges. Polls suggest that, similar to developed jury systems, 70% of the population of Japan would be reluctant to serve as judges. Some Japanese have been introduced to mock trials over recent years to overcome their reluctance to express opinions publicly, debate, and defy authority figures. Others have written with concern regarding the harsh secrecy provision in the statute which includes the risk of criminal penalties for those lay judges who would publicly share confidential deliberation room discussion even after trial proceedings are complete. Another issue is that some criminal trials used to take years if the charge was serious and the defence contested the charge. After the system moved to include lay judges, the trial period was fixed to a maximum of a few weeks. Some commentators feel justice is compromised for the convenience of lay judges and that cases are not examined in enough detail.