BY DAIGO SAWANO

On the 26th of November this year (2000), the Diet enacted a revision to the Juvenile Law. The revision provides, (1), that prosecutors can take part in proceeding involving juveniles, (2), that children can be subjected to criminal proceeding be lowered from 16 to 14, and, (3), that children who commit murder or acts with lethal consequences should, in principle, be punished according to the Criminal Law. The effect of these revisions is to change the policy of the Juvenile Law- which has until now been one of rehabilitation- into a policy which aims firstly at punishing the offenders.

At present, the Juvenile Law provides, in principle, for the rehabilitation of child offenders. When the new law take effect, this provision will be destroyed. At present, the rate of second offenders by children on parole from reformatories is 24,3%. If we compare this figure with the figure for adult second offenders,48,6%, there can be no question that 24.3% is a much smaller figure. How absurd, therefore, the new enactment appears, since it ignores such institutions as the reformatories and the family courts which have been working so hard to effect the rehabilitation of law-breaking children.

Can a 14-year old boy deal by himself with a criminal trial? As he stands alone in the court, he must answer the question put to him by the judge and the persecutor, and he must accurately explain to them all the circumstances of his case. This is hardly possible for a 14-year old boy, who is not able adequately to read a newspaper because many of words are outside the reach of his knowledge. If he is therefore isolated from the discussions going on around him, his trial will become a quarrel between adults, the judge, prosecutors and lawyers. There is also the likelihood that his ignorance may lead to making of false accusations.

On the other hand, the present Juvenile Law is also imperfect, since it does not properly address the question of victims and bereaved families. Those who, as a result of juvenile delinquency, have lost someone important in their lives, require full information about the causes and nature of the tragedy. The trial should make a full report of who should responsibility for what has happened, and specify exactly what criminal act the offender has committed- in particular when, as result of criminal act, the victim is dead.

Although the new law does pay a little more regard to the victims and the bereaved, it still does not satisfy their main requirements. For though the new law provides that if victims and bereaved families wish to offer their opinions, the court must listen to them, and must also send to them the full proceedings and deliberations of the court, the law only permits these two provisions, and still prohibits any public and open description of the processes of a trial itself. This matter will require further serious public argument.

According to a letter which representatives for victims and bereaved families submitted to the Diet, " It is most important that a person who has committed a crime should take responsibility for whatever he has done. The Juvenile Law has failed to address this issue. Such admittance of responsibility is, in our opinion, the first step in the wholesome rehabilitation which the Law calls for". At present, in fact, not even victims or bereaved families are able to acquire any information about the proceedings in criminal cases involving children, even if they ask for it. And it is a rare cases for the offender actually to be required to face his victims and apologize for what he has done. Victims and the bereaved are never satisfied with the punishment awarded to teenage offenders: they wish offenders to take full responsibility for what they have done.

It is , however, impossible for the Criminal Law to force children to realize their responsibility or imagine the pain felt by the victims because today many of the offenders are also victims. For instance, the boy who, earlier this year, hijacked a bus in Saga prefecture, was himself the victims of cruel bullying when he was a junior high school student. As a result of this experience, he lost confidence, both in himself and others. In the end, because he came to the conclusion that life was not worth living, he committed the crime. It is difficult, under the terms of the Criminal Law, for such a boy, whose heart has been so badly injured, to realize the seriousness of his crime, or apologize to the bereaved and the victims, not only superficially, but from the bottom of his heart. The revisions to the Law are not really necessary. What we need is to make sure that we bring up children in a wholesome manner, so that they are healthy and happy.

On the other hand, many Japanese people are scared of juvenile delinquency because of its cruelty and mindlessness. It is because many people feel that juvenile crimes constitute a crisis for the future of the nation that this Law has been enacted. Although the excuse "Nobody can punish me because I am a child" cannot be accepted, it is doubtful if the revisions to the Juvenile Law will cause teenagers to reconsider actions leading to the committing of crimes. If it proves impossible, though the terms of the new Law, to put a stop to juvenile delinquency, the Diet means to enact another law, by means of revisions to the Fundamental Law of Education and other social systems. To avoid excessive discussions and consequent reforms, I expect teenagers to understand the meaning of the new Juvenile Law.

It is wrong to seek to prevent juvenile delinquency by imposing harsh punishments. Society has itself to change. Since children are mirrors who reflect the disease of adult society, we have to correct the evils of the environments which surround children, by, for example, punishing politicians who commit crimes or policeman who have no morals. It is impossible to raise our children wholesomely without wholesome models. This is the best way to prevent juvenile delinquency. It is not a problem that can be solved by arguments between politicians and jurists-nor should it be. They should listen to the opinions of the people, to those who had run reformatories, educational institutions, parents and children. If this proves to be impossible, the Juvenile Law will never reach the ideal state that we really want.