Having been called and served on juries several times during my life, including one case of homicide, I cannot understand all the anguish that is taking place over the new lay judge/jury system set to begin in Japan in a couple years.

In the United States, 12 jurors determine the guilt or innocence in a criminal case. In some states, the accused may elect to have the case heard by a lesser number. Jurors must return a verdict unanimously. If a jury cannot agree, a mistrial is declared and the prosecution may or may not elect to retry the case. Many times the cases are dismissed; other times they have gone to a second and third trial -- as in the case of the Menendez brothers in Los Angeles who shotgunned their parents to death and then claimed self-defense. Two mistrials and then a third led to a sentence of life imprisonment.

With all its resources, I cannot understand why the Japanese government did not send a commission to both America and to Britain to study a system that has been in place for hundreds of years and just copy it as it has proven its worth in most trials.

A defendant need not take the stand in defense nor say anything in court. It is up to the prosecutor to prove the accusation with the presumption of innocence. It saddens me to see such hostility from the Japanese public when an accused remains silent in court or the attorneys involved do not raise a vigorous defense. The burden should rest upon the state to prove guilt, not the defendant to prove innocence.

I would hope that the Japanese citizen called to duty in court would realize what an opportunity it is to be part of the legal and judicial system. After all, the power of the state comes from the individuals governed, and who is better to make a decision: a faceless bureaucrat, or a neighbor who daily faces the challenges and burdens of ordinary living?

andrew j. betancourt