The right to jury service or the right to vote?
The system of trial by jury, whereby fellow members of the community decide on the guilt or innocence of a suspect, was introduced into Asia through the expansion of British colonialism. But, now that the British empire is gone, few former British colonies have opted to retain the jury system. Hong Kong is one exception.
Jury trials have been retained by Australia, New Zealand and Sri Lanka, but were abandoned by Singapore and Malaysia, as well as India and Pakistan.
Other countries in Asia without a British heritage, however, are now showing an interest in the system as part of the democratisation process. While jury trials evolved within common-law systems, Asian countries within the civil-law tradition are now experimenting with the system.
South Korea adopted trial by jury two months ago, although jury decisions are not binding. Last week saw the first case of a verdict and sentence returned by a jury being accepted by the judge, the prosecution and the defence.
In this case, a 20-year-old mother in Kwangju was found guilty of strangling her 18-month-old daughter last December. The nine-member jury debated whether the woman was physically or mentally ill at the time of the crime. Her lawyer argued that the woman was suffering from postpartum depression and pointed out that the incident took place only four weeks after she had given birth to another child.
Seven of the nine jurors found her guilty of murder and six agreed on a suspended sentence. Though the decision was only advisory, it was accepted by the court. Both the prosecution and the accused said they would challenge the decision.
Next year, Japan will also embark on an experiment with trial by jury or, actually, by a combination of judges and lay assessors. This will be the second such experiment. An earlier experiment with jury trial for civil cases ended in 1943. In 2001, the country's Judicial Reform Council again called for a sweeping transformation of the legal profession and the judicial system.