Research On Japan's Judicial Bargain System

In May 2016,the Japanese judicial bargain system act was voted on by congress and is scheduled to take effect by June 2018.Judicial bargain system means that the suspect negotiates with the prosecutor by helping to detect other cases in exchange for prosecutors not prosecuting,withdrawing prosecutions,prosecuting according to a specific cause of action or punishment,or requesting the court to impose a specific sentence and applying a specific procedure.Japan introduced the judicial bargain system to alleviate the pressure on the case,improve the efficiency of public prosecution,and investigate the modern crime for the purpose of to uncover the truth of the case,identifying the real culprit and promoting people's understanding and trust in criminal justice.As an important system in the reform of criminal justice in the new era of Japan,the judicial bargain system not only absorbs the strengths of the U.S.plea bargaining system,but also has its own institutional innovation.It is of some significance to study the judicial bargain system in Japan on how to improve Chinese System of admitting guilty with lenient sentence.This paper is divided into five parts.The first part introduces the introduction and legislative background of Japan's judicial bargain system.The introduction of judicial bargain system lies in the new situation of crime.Traditional crimes have a large base and low resolution rate,while modern crimes,which are represented by corporate crime,cross-regional telecommunication fraud and organized crime,are emerging in an endless stream.All this has deepened people's distrust of criminal justice in ascertaining the truth.Therefore,Japanese politicians and academics have all called for the introduction of a system of judicial bargain in response to the grim situation in Japan's new era of crime.Under the guideline of "speedy criminal judge" established by Japan's judicial reform in the 21 st century,in September 2014,the Japanese judicial system on the legislative process,eventually voted by congress in May 2016,Japan employs two years from the attitude of the national,academic discussion,equipped with the preparation of relevant legal system,plan in June 2018 before the formal implementation of the "judicial bargain " act.The second part focuses on the theoretical controversies of Japan's judicial bargain system.This section reviews and summarizes the controversies over certain important issues in the enactment of the system between Japanese politicians,legal practitioners and academics.Mainly include the following four issues of controversy: First,whether the judicial bargain system should be introduced,the second is to introduce what type of judicial bargain,the third is the case applicable to the judicial bargain system,the fourth is how judges and courts participate in judicial bargains.The third part focuses on the content of the judicial bargain system.The content mainly involves six aspects,one is the scope of the applicable case of the judicial bargain system,the second is the main body of the consensus,the third is the consensus content,the fourth is the effect of the consensus,the fifth is the termination of consensus,including three kinds of situations: which termination are attributable to the parties,not attributable to the parties,as well as other circumstances of termination,sixth is the exception to the trial procedure.The fourth part mainly evaluates the system of judicial bargain in Japan with reference to the system of U.S.plea bargaining.This part first briefly summarizes American plea bargaining system by two aspects from the historical profile and the existence reason,and then it points out that although the system of judicial bargain has much reference to plea bargaining system.There are still many unique features compared with the plea bargaining system.The uniqueness includes seven aspects: one is the restrictive applicable cases,second,the three parties participated in forcibly and negotiate face to face,three are more restrictive consensus content,four is the diversity of the program selection,five is the integrity of the defense litigation rights,six is positive court survey,seven is a special public prosecution supervision institutions.At the same time,compared with the merits of the system of plea bargaining in the United States,there are still many limitations in the system of judicial bargain in Japan:one is the unity of the type of the introduction,the second is the relative backwardness of the quality and quantity of the defense lawyer,three is the neglect of the victim's rights,four is to prevent false statements of insufficient measures,five is under the influence of "Precision justice",lack of adversary factors.The fifth part is based on a relatively complete introduction to the judicial bargain system in Japan.There is a briefly reviewed about the similarities and differences between the System of admitting guilty with lenient sentence in China and the judicial transaction system in Japan from the perspective of legislation.And then discusses what references from judicial bargain system to perfect the system of admitting guilty with lenient sentence.First,to establish the norms and guidance at the legislative level,to study the rigor of Japanese legislation,and to legislate the system of admitting guilty with lenient sentence.Second is to improve the on duty lawyer system and gradually establish a compulsory defense system.First,refining the work of on duty lawyers,to give them more similar rights of defense lawyers,to strengthen lawyer team building,to improve legal aid funding.On this basis,gradually establish a compulsory defense system in the System of admitting guilty with lenient sentence.Third,introduce the system of people's supervisors in the case of admitting guilty with lenient sentence.This includes enlarging the scope of the election of people's supervisors in admitting guilty with lenient sentence cases,broadening the scope of oversight of the people's supervisors system,improving the supervisory procedures for case comments,and giving the rigidity of effectiveness to the opinion of the people's supervisor.Fourth,clear the consequences of procedural regret.Clarify denied the proof ability of the criminal suspect and the defendant under the failure of the negotiation.