Which country's justice system comes closest to your ideal?
Any system with "Presumption of innocence" and "ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" . In here, first you are guilty and you must prove you are not. The court in the end is just a joke which just reads what the prosecutor, who is ABOVE the court in Japan, wrote. And despite not being proven guilty yet, just arrested by the police, TV shows their face and they are being lynched, ultimately everyone else thinking "hey, they are in TV, they must be guilty". 人質司法 is wrong on many levels. It's just wrong.
The UK system releases individuals early they fully knows are dangerous to the public, as seen in recent street attacks. Canada releases criminals "on good behavior" after serving a small fraction of their sentences. If they're in jail, they should be behaving! If not, then extend their sentences.
As a general rule the systems rooted in Common Law tend to strive to be open and as just as humanly possible, they have an inbuilt emphasis on the rights of the individual. Those based on Civil Law are based on Roman Jurisprudence via the Code Napoleon, both systems originated in a dictatorship and are very state orientated, the individual is there to serve the state rather than the other way round. Having said that they have over time been adjusted and amended to better reflect the needs of democratic societies, at least where the societies have become democratic.
In the final analysis no system is perfect as the humans administering it are by their nature fallible.
Is the a single reader of JapanToday knowledgeable enough about all the various justices systems of the world to select one that comes close to their ideal? I've studied quite a few, but absolutely cannot answer this question.
Having served on a jury in Australia, on paper and usually in practice, Australia's criminal law justice system is pretty good. Civil... well, there's plenty of room for improvement due to the high cost of civil actions and length of time that can drag on.
A system that allows the accused open access to all information the prosecution has, has access to a lawyer, and is not kept captive until the prosecution builds a case against the accused; a system that assumes the accused is innocent until actual proof (not merely a confession) shows otherwise.
Does such a system exist that is also not corrupt in some way? Don’t know, but I know of several who strive for it.
16 Comments
Login to comment
Robert Cikki
Which country's justice system comes closest to your ideal?
Any system with "Presumption of innocence" and "ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" . In here, first you are guilty and you must prove you are not. The court in the end is just a joke which just reads what the prosecutor, who is ABOVE the court in Japan, wrote. And despite not being proven guilty yet, just arrested by the police, TV shows their face and they are being lynched, ultimately everyone else thinking "hey, they are in TV, they must be guilty". 人質司法 is wrong on many levels. It's just wrong.
albaleo
How to measure this?
If a low crime rate is the goal, then perhaps Japan's system isn't so bad.
If money made by lawyers is the measure, then... well I think we can guess.
I guess a system that can be described as open and not hidden is best. And so back to my first question, how to measure that?
Wakarimasen
Saudi Arabia.
Tom
Actually I trust none, so I follow the rules and never see inside a jail cell. Technically we are not all free.
Maria
Northern European countries seem to have a good system.
JeffLee
The US.
The UK system releases individuals early they fully knows are dangerous to the public, as seen in recent street attacks. Canada releases criminals "on good behavior" after serving a small fraction of their sentences. If they're in jail, they should be behaving! If not, then extend their sentences.
No Business
The UK, US, Australia, Germany....you know, pretty much any first world country....
englisc aspyrgend
As a general rule the systems rooted in Common Law tend to strive to be open and as just as humanly possible, they have an inbuilt emphasis on the rights of the individual. Those based on Civil Law are based on Roman Jurisprudence via the Code Napoleon, both systems originated in a dictatorship and are very state orientated, the individual is there to serve the state rather than the other way round. Having said that they have over time been adjusted and amended to better reflect the needs of democratic societies, at least where the societies have become democratic.
In the final analysis no system is perfect as the humans administering it are by their nature fallible.
taj
Is the a single reader of JapanToday knowledgeable enough about all the various justices systems of the world to select one that comes close to their ideal? I've studied quite a few, but absolutely cannot answer this question.
Disillusioned
Which specific country? Let's just say, a country with a truly democratic justice system where a person is not guilty until proven innocent.
BertieWooster
Holland
kyronstavic
Having served on a jury in Australia, on paper and usually in practice, Australia's criminal law justice system is pretty good. Civil... well, there's plenty of room for improvement due to the high cost of civil actions and length of time that can drag on.
borscht
A system that allows the accused open access to all information the prosecution has, has access to a lawyer, and is not kept captive until the prosecution builds a case against the accused; a system that assumes the accused is innocent until actual proof (not merely a confession) shows otherwise.
Does such a system exist that is also not corrupt in some way? Don’t know, but I know of several who strive for it.
Aly Rustom
Many people are critical of Japan's so-called "hostage justice" system.
They should be.
Which country's justice system comes closest to your ideal?
Both the British and Canadian ones