User:MichaelKijana

Report on Judicial Reforms-Plea Bargaining in Japan ‘Plea bargaining’ is the disposition of criminal cases through a mutual agreement between the accused person and the prosecutor. It is one of the critical managerial reforms in the administration of justice or the judicial system. According to Khan (2011), plea bargaining should be encouraged because it offers legal sensibility since criminal justice can be negotiated instead of being imposed. While plea bargaining is one of the frequently applied practices within the criminal justice systems globally because of its some of the advantages, it is a practice that has attracted a lot of controversies. One of the benefits is that it promotes efficiency in the delivery and administration of justice since the prosecution and the defense come into agreement and after negation. Also, it allows the defendant to confess incriminating statements or rather to plead guilty to one or all the criminal charges to enable the prosecutor to suspend the trial for other charges, which is known as charge bargaining or rather or supporting of a lighter sentence. Plea Bargaining Plea bargaining is voluntary in the sense that the criminal defendant has got an opportunity to choose whether to surrender their inalienable constitutional rights to a jury prosecution and loses the safeguards, which a trial offer. Similarly, plea bargaining is essential in maintaining overburden courts and prosecutorial team. Jury trials have been the norm. The courts ensure that the defendant is sufficiently informed of the effects of taking the plea and verified that the prosecutor or any person had not manipulated the defendants so they can plead guilty. The defendants are informed that plea bargaining is voluntary. This is to ascertain that the rights of a person are not abused. In the view of O'Hear, (2007), prosecutors have procured prisoners to plead guilty of the charges, yet a fair trial proves that the defendants are not guilty. The criminal justice evident in Japan is prominently shaped by the prosecutor’s organization of operations in performing their roles. The plea bargain was introduced in Japan in June 2018, and this marked a significant reform in the Japan Criminal Justice( Dancing-Rosenberg and Gal, 2019. This reform will make the prosecutors indict fewer charges on criminals who successfully cooperate in the process of investigation by offering evidence in support of their accomplices. This reform in Japan is, however, different from other countries like the USA, where a person can plead guilty and have their concessions from the prosecution team. Expectations are always available in the system to serve as critical tools in the investigation of organized crimes. This part of the reform is, however, feared for the ability of false statements from suspects against innocent people to seek leniency. Hence, the reform must always consider the possibility of false statements. Plea bargain exists in various forms depending on the criminal justice system of a nation. Taking a brief look at the United States, the system has been in use for over 200 years, and a plea bargain is considered to play a very critical role in the system. The record shows that 90 percent of the criminal cases in the US are settled through a plea bargain, and this has helped avoid the long trial processes, and this also helps in reducing the backlog of cases tackled in the courts. The highest number of plea bargains in the United States, however, entails an example of a suspect pleading guilty in return for leniency from the prosecutors. In Japan, the introduction of this system is used as an enhanced tool for investigations to be part of the broad criminal justice reforms. This reform was introduced as a result of several false charges to the innocent people resulting from the suspects pleading guilty. There were a lot of controversies of prosecutors and the police officers for conducting investigations that relied on the confession of suspects who, at times, were coercing by interrogators to making statements supporting the investigator's cases (Combs, 2007). To increase transparency to the interrogations process, the reform in 2016 proposed an essential police and prosecutors audiovisual recording of the interrogation process in serious crimes subjected to judge trials. The plea bargain that was part of the 2016 amendment on criminal law proceedings is based on the police and prosecutors' demands that required substitute means of evidence collection in the investigation process since the interrogation recordings could be false statements from the suspect. In the reformed system, it is upon the prosecutors to decide whether to indict lesser charges in the suspect despite their willingness and ability to cooperate in the investigation process that proves their accomplices with the case under investigation. The criminal cases where a plea bargain is very critical are those related to drugs and firearm offenses, antitrust violations, organized fraud, and bribery (Khan,2011). In other cases, a suspect who pleads guilty is only considered after the investigation process proves their involvement in the crime. The plea bargain process is very critical in scenarios of organized crimes where the junior employees in a criminal group agree to testify against their leaders and masterminds in corporate crimes. In this case, the prosecutors are by law required to consider leniency in charging the cooperating criminals. The tacit bargain is another common feature in the Japanese judicial system as it provides a way for getting to the cultural aversion to an explicit plea bargain in the legal community. The Japanese culture dislike for plea bargaining comes from the fact that the Japanese justice system does not depend on the rights of the defendants. The order in Japan focuses on subjective justice instead. The judicial system in Japan is based on three major goals. The first goal is getting a truthful account of events. The second goal is exacting remorse to the defendants as they attempt to rehabilitate the offender. The last goal is the victim's protection. The legal professionals in Japan hence disagree with plea bargain because it hinders the goals. They state that the pressure on innocent defendants to plead guilty distorts the truth. The pressure is believed to undermine the search for truth, and a guilty plea precludes sincere apology coming from the defendant hence diminishing the genuine rehabilitation, thus interfering with the healing process. The tacit bargain is thus emulated to get through the obstacles brought by institutionalized plea bargain. Pros of Plea Bargain in Japan One of the primary reasons as to why pleas have been praised is the efficiency it provides to the justice departments. Japan, in the past, has been characterized as paradise lost. This has been so because of the low crime rates in the country in comparison to other industrialized countries. However, following the slow increase in the crime rates and the respective decline in the public's sense of security, a plea bargain is becoming a primary consideration that must be emulated to reduce the backlog in criminal cases across the country (O'Hear, 2007). In the 1960s all during the 1980s, the period when crime rates in many countries increased during industrialization, there was a fall in the crime rates in Japan. The pattern, however, took a reverse direction in the 1990s, the period when the country experienced an economic downturn (Khan,2011). The increase ever since in the number of crimes in Japan has led to the rise in the cases in the judicial system, which has also become slow hence a decrease in the number of cases tried and prosecuted. This signaled the need for a safety valve in the system, and so, tacit bargain and the expedited trial have been used to address the burden in the system (Combs, 2007). The two have not however, been a solution for the efficiency needed,. So, plea bargain has been so effective promoting efficiency in the criminal justice system by helping in the quick disposal of the several cases that would otherwise wait for trial in the justice system. As stated earlier, the increase in criminal activities in Japan since the 1990s to date has been a burden to the economy. The overall crime as statistics says it shows that between the years 1994 and 2004, the increase in crimes was about 150% (Combs, 2007). The Ministry of Justice issued a White Paper on Crime in the year 2002, showing a steady increase in the crimes. The accompanying decrease in the trial process was also witnessed for the alleged violations of the Japanese Penal Code. The most increased crimes in the country were stated to be non-violent ones like theft and burglary in the past two decades. The increase in crimes, especially the non-violent ones, is a clear indication that plea bargain has been one of the best reforms the country has ever emulated (O'Hear, 2007). Due to the pressure for the prosecutors, the plea bargain enables them to dispose of certain cases quickly, not only conserving the time but also the resources spent by the nation in ensuring the prosecution of each case goes to completion. The less serious crimes have been amenable to plea bargain since the prosecutors since the seriousness of the offenses is one of the significant factors to consider in a plea bargain. The increase in crime rates has been demanding more prosecutorial resources that would ensure the public is kept safe. According to the United Nations, there were at least two fewer prosecutors for every 100,000 people in Japan. The Japanese government had a plan to increase this number, possibly by deploying more resources to the sector, but the number remains low as per the United Nations. The fact that the increasing number of crimes can never keep up with the increasing crime rates, the safety valve that is plea bargaining has become the most effective tool for the economy (Gray, 2019). Further prosecutorial resources have been advanced by the 2009 limits that introduced jury trials, and so, the law is clear that prosecutors must conform to resource conservation by where plea bargain remains one of the most critical possibilities. Cons of plea bargaining A section of critics argues that plea bargaining treats guilty respondents too leniently, which might then undermine facts finding the duty of a trial by putting a lot of pressure on innocent defendants to accept a bargain. In 1990 the government of Japan brought about a series of legal reformed aimed at promoting the foundation of the judicial and administrative systems (Dzur and Geraghty,2016). The Justice System Reform Council (JSRC) then gave its recommendation that plea bargaining should not be allowed since it is crucial to establish an efficient trial process. However, despite the resistance to the establishment of plea bargaining, a section of the legal system in japan approved alternative type of bargaining known as tacit bargaining to offer efficiency in the delivery of justice. The confession-dependent tacit bargaining that is currently practiced in Japan has been arguably an ineffective substitute for a traditional plea-bargaining system. The institutionalized plea bargaining can achieve the ultimate efficiency objective of avoiding trial., which helps in the creation of the binding, enforceable bargains, and it also helps in yielding benefits to the defense as well as the prosecution through proper negotiation. (Khan (2011) argues that tacit bargaining is nonnegotiable as well as nonbinding, which fails to reinforce aspects of the justice system in Japan. Tacit bargaining explores existing vulnerabilities within the justice system in Japan and often leads to ignorant and involuntary confessions (Combs, 2007). Furthermore, the nonbinding as well as the nonnegotiable nature of the tacit bargains inhibits their effectiveness. On the contrary, the institutionalized plea-bargaining system provides some protections for the rights of the defendants.  The implication is that through plea bargaining, there is a balance for both the persecutors and defendants.  Plea bargaining may be viewed as a way of obtaining the ingrained cultural hatred. Some defendants may experience unfair hearing and, consequently, judgment simply because they belong to another race or origin. In Japan, trial judges play a significant role in ensuring that fare justice is delivered. Several factors influence the delivery of fair and unbiased justice, such as economy, race, gender, among other factors. Studies show that the poor and the minority often have experienced biased rulings. Others have been coerced into taking the plea to have lesser charges from the persecutors. Moreover, the negotiation between the prosecutors and the defendants may not be balanced, thereby leading to infringement of the constitutional rights of the defendants. The race or background of the defendant plays a crucial role in determining the case against them. This depends on the efficiency of the judicial system that begins from the time prosecutes make an arrest to the time one is arraigned before courts of law. When a defendant changes his pleas from the initial not guilty to guilty remains to be a phenomenon, which substantially contributes to the unfair criminal justice system. The guilty plea is a significant mode of criminal charge dispositions; for this reason, it helps in freeing up the court and prosecutorial resources. The governments should encourage early guilty pleas to stir efficiency and cost savings. Courts may not handle a large number of cases in case all defendants opt for a trial that might take much longer compared to processes applicable to plea bargaining.

References Combs, N.A., 2007. Guilty pleas in international criminal law: Constructing a restorative justice approach. Stanford University Press. Dancig-Rosenberg, H. and Gal, T., 2019. Multi-Door Criminal Justice. New Crim. L. Rev., 22, p.347. Dzur, A.W. and Geraghty, T.F., 2016. White paper of democratic criminal justice. Nw. UL Rev., 111, p.1693. Gray, H., 2019. Can Restorative Justice Processes Help Improve Plea Bargaining in Uganda's Criminal Justice System. Pepp. Disp. Resol. LJ, 19, p.215. Khan, S.A., 2011. Restorative Justice Under the Criminal Justice System in India: With Special Reference to Plea Bargaining and Compounding Measures. Restorative Justice In India-M. Phil. Dissertation, Wbnujs. O'Hear, M.M., 2007. Plea bargaining and procedural justice. Ga. L. Rev., 42, p.407.