Current Trends and Issues in Japanese Sentencing

Shiroshita, Yuji

doi:10.1525/fsr.2010.22.4.243

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another response to ‘a changing sense of justice’ among the public (Japan, Ministry of Justice, 2004; Shiroshita, 2010, p.244) was the revision of the Penal Code that raised the maximum length of determinate sentences in 2004; the upper limit for a single crime was increased from 15 to 20 years and that of aggravated sentences for multiple crimes and recidivists from 20 to 30 years. This change also came in response to victim demands (Hamai & Ellis, 2006, 2008a; Miyazawa, 2008).…”

Section: Critical Analysis Of the Current Place For Public Concernsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A place for public concerns in parole decision making in Japan

Toda

2023

Howard J Crime Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, parole decision makers have grappled with an intensifying challenge in addressing public concerns. While discussions on the rise of ‘parole populism’ have emerged, especially in Canada, the United States, Australia and England and Wales, little is known about the way public concerns influence parole release in Japan. This article engages in legal‐systematic analysis of the intricate relationship between public concerns and Japanese parole decision making in general and release from life imprisonment in particular. The article argues that, while Japanese selective parole decision making considering public concerns in secrecy may have partially contributed to political rhetoric encouraging parole, it also poses unique challenges distinct from those in Anglophone jurisdictions. It reveals the value of fostering a transparent and accountable parole decision‐making system to promote a more balanced and fairer approach to parole in the Japanese context.

show abstract

Section: Critical Analysis Of the Current Place For Public Concernsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A place for public concerns in parole decision making in Japan

Toda

2023

Howard J Crime Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…203 A particularly interesting example is Japan, where the Supreme Court initiated a sentencing database in May 2008 to provide both lay judges and professional judges with information on sentencing patterns. 204 Within a relatively short period of time, information on more than 3,000 cases was added to the system, and judges soon expressed that they considered the database a great help in sentencing new cases. 205 One might criticize that a sentencing database does not necessarily lead to greater consistency, given its merely informative nature.…”

Section: Creating a Sentencing Information Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Striving for Consistency: Why German Sentencing Needs Reform

Herz¹

2020

German Law Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the debate at the seventy-second Conference of the Association of German Jurists (Deutscher Juristentag) in September 2018 on whether German sentencing needs reform, this Article will explore this very question in greater detail. In this regard, this Article will present various empirical studies in order to demonstrate that notable inconsistencies in German sentencing practice exist. This Article will then point out that broad statutory sentencing ranges, along with fairly vague sentencing guidance, are among the main causes of these disparities. Subsequently, this Article will examine several mechanisms that selected foreign jurisdictions—namely the U.S., the U.K., and Australia—have put in place in order to enhance consistency in their sentencing practices. Three mechanisms of sentencing guidance will be distinguished here: First, formal sentencing guidelines; second, guideline judgments; and third, sentencing advisory bodies as they operate in some Australian states. This Article will compare these mechanisms and assess their merits and drawbacks. Based on this comparative study, this Article will look at how to improve consistency in German sentencing practice. In this respect, this Article will present three steps that German criminal law reform should follow, including a better sentencing framework, the strategic gathering of sentencing data, and the implementation of a flexible sentencing guidelines regime.

show abstract