Japanese culture has often been compared to an oyster because both of them exhibit a similar response to foreign substances that somehow slip past their outer protective layers. They begin to naturally protect themselves from the irritant by covering it up, until eventually the original substance has added so many new layers that it has become unrecognizable. Today that same process is at work with the Japanese justice system.

In June 2001, the Justice System Reform Council submitted recommendations to the Cabinet, which in turn created the Office for Promotion of Justice System Reform chaired by the Prime Minister. Together with the Supreme Court and the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, a reform program was developed and approved by the Cabinet on March 19, 2002.

While the reforms will affect the whole system including legal education, access to justice and Alternative Dispute Resolution, perhaps the greatest change will be the expanded participation of the general public. Specifically, the Diet passed on a law on May 21, 2004 to include ordinary citizens in the administration of justice through the criminal court system.

However, this is not Japan's first time using ordinary citizens in trials. It will actually be a reintroduction of the jury system with which it experimented in criminal trials from 1928 to 1943. While that system was also a fusion of foreign systems with a Japanese twist, its use was quite minimal.

At its height, the Japanese legal system tried 143 cases in 1929 but by 1942 only two jury trials were held. In total, only 611 defendants chose jury trials, which gave the system little chance of evolving and affirming its uniqueness in comparison to other jurisdictions.

The twin death knells of that jury system were probably the rise of fascism (and a corresponding lack of interest from the authorities for allowing "communists" to take advantage of juries) and the ability of judges to disregard the jury's answers, seat a new jury and try the case again.

Based on stable democratic government of over 50 years and the support of legal professionals, the new system will be given more than its fair chance to succeed. The goal is to introduce the saibanin (lay-judge) system by May 2009 to try serious offenses in District Courts. This will fundamentally change the current "single judge and collegiate court systems" which seats either a single judge or a three-judge panel court for criminal trials. It will be a panel of three judges and six jurors who will discuss the case together and then vote to decide whether the accused is innocent or guilty, using majority rule.

The impetus behind this reform has been a series of criticisms over the years leveled at the failures of the judge-based system. First, in highly publicized verdicts, such as Government v. Akabori and Government v. Menda, judges have overturned the sentences of four death row inmates who were imprisoned for over twenty-five years. Second, judges' heavy reliance on the fact-finding of prosecutors suggests that they simply act as "rubber stamps" on those results.

Thus, defendants are seen to be convicted even before their trial begins, which is borne out by the country's measly 1.84% acquittal rate in 2001. Third, most of the Japanese judiciary are career judges with little experience of the outside world. While highly trained and educated, their attitudes and experience are extremely different from the general public and this may hurt their factfinding abilities.

Finally, the Japanese system is notoriously slow, on average taking 8.4 months to hear a criminal trial. In the infamous case of Shoko Asahara who headed the Aum cult, the trial took almost eight years before sentencing him to death.

In response, the government has introduced the current reforms. According to its own propaganda, "the justice system reforms will be beneficial because as the perspectives of the general public are reflected more directly in trial through the public participation in them, it is anticipated that the people will show deeper support for the justice system."

While, this may seem somewhat idealistic before the first jury member has been selected, the government has actually taken steps to address some of the concerns raised earlier. In order to better prepare judges for their place in society and expand their horizons, the Supreme Court of Japan created the Overseas Training and Research Program, which sends 22 young associate judges to study foreign legal systems every year.

Satoru Uchida is one such judge who came to the University of Toronto in Canada after applying to take part in the program. "I had checked off every country in the Young Judges Overseas Training Program, but I didn't have a preference. Fortunately I was accepted to Toronto. I really appreciate that," Satoru explained.

While he's in Canada for one year, some judges go abroad for as long as two years to places such as Australia, France and Germany. (Perhaps no one had briefed Satoru on the Canadian winter before he accepted.)

The role of judges in this program is to have a personally diverse experience within their rigorous ten-year training program and to introduce the justice system of their host country to the Japanese legal community. In particular, they will focus on learning about the jury system in operation.

"We don't know how to instruct, select or communicate with jurors," Satoru stated, "so once a month I write a report to the Supreme Court of Japan about the Canadian legal system."

This Japanese judge also believes that Canada is very progressive and always on the lookout for ways of improving itself. He referred to a project undertaken by a University of Toronto professor.

"I noticed many poor people at Provincial Court, especially aboriginals. This is a social problem. In R. v. Gladue, the Supreme Court recommended to have a new trial for aboriginal people. Professor [Kent] Roach helped to construct this new system. Canada is very flexible and progressive compared to Japan, which is conservative."

Satoru also sung the praises of the Canadian Supreme Court reference system.

"One important thing is that Canada has a reference unlike the US or Japan. Sometimes the Supreme Court decides very political issues, some of which I think the legislature should deal with. However, I think the Canadian legal system looks so liberal because of the existence of the reference system and the Supreme Court's affirmative action to protect minority rights."

While it remains to be seen if the Japanese reforms will live up to its lofty goals, it is evident the Supreme Court of Japan has taken its role seriously and is providing valuable support to the process. Winning over the Japanese public will require more judges like Satoru who are enthusiastic and engaged in the changes that are taking place.