THE BASIC PRINCIPLE AND REVISION OF THE JUVENILE ACT
Toshihiro Kawaide＊

I. THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF THE JUVENILE ACT
A. Trends in the Juvenile Act
Because juveniles are generally less mature than adults, but more plastic, in other words, they have more
promise, it is regarded as necessary and reasonable to treat juvenile offenders differently from adultoffenders. This view has been widely accepted, whether ancient or modern, eastern or western. Based on thisview, juvenile delinquents have been specially treated by special proceedings.
Each country has enacted a juvenile law or a juvenile court law as the basic law for the treatment ofjuvenile delinquents. Roughly, there are two trends in juvenile law. One of them is based on the theory of
criminal justice developed with the progress of criminology. It is based on the view that the purpose of crime
prevention can be achieved better by imposing an appropriate punishment through not only judging theobjective aspects of a crime from a legal perspective but also paying attention to the individual criminal.
From this point of view, because juveniles are highly plastic and can be improved by education, the treatmentof each juvenile delinquent by the use of an educational method is effective for making the juvenile a healthy
member of society, which also meets the purpose of social defense. According to this view, a juvenile law is a
special criminal law that covers juveniles who have committed a criminal act.
The other trend in juvenile law is based on the tutelary and welfare view that originated from the idea of
equity. According to this view, if a child has not received appropriate protection from his/her parents or
sufficient welfare, the State is responsible for giving him/her the care and education and promoting thechildʼs social adaptation and independence in place of his parent or guardian by exercising judicial power.
This view is based on the idea of parens patriae. That is to say, if a child commits a crime, the child will betreated like a child who commits delinquency or has been abused or neglected by the parents. This idea on
juvenile protection was born as a result of the child-saving movement in the US in the 19th century. The idea
was embodied when the first juvenile court was established in Cook County, the State of Illinois in 1899. After
that, juvenile courts were established all over the US. In 1943, a revised Standard Juvenile Court Act was
published by the National Probation and Parole Association. It has been regarded as a culmination of such
movements.
B. Principle of Delinquency Control
The difference between these two trends arises from what grounds a State has to intervene in a juvenile
delinquentʼs rehabilitation, even against his will. The former trend is based on the view that the Stateʼsgrounds for intervention lie in the juvenileʼs infringement of another personʼs interest through delinquency(the “principle of harm”). The prevention of repeat delinquency through reformatory education of juveniles isdeemed to be the same as special prevention as a purpose of criminal punishment, and the purpose of thejuvenile law is to ensure the safety of society by preventing the juvenile from committing a delinquency
again. According to this, the juvenile law is clearly a part of the criminal justice system. This view has been
adopted by continental-law countries. In Germany, for example, the Juvenile Court Law, which is based on“educational ideology” and only covers criminal juveniles, is regarded as a special law for the criminal code,
the code of criminal procedure, and the code of Prison Administration, and this field of law is called “juvenile
criminal law.”
According to this view, a special disposition (protective measures) to which a juvenile delinquent isProfessor at the University of Tokyo.

＊

249

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 102

sentenced under the juvenile law is imposed as a sanction against the juvenileʼs delinquency based on thejuvenileʼs blameworthiness. In this sense, the disposition is a form of criminal punishment and is regarded as a
special criminal punishment imposed with consideration for juvenilesʼ lower criminal responsibility thanadults, and juvenilesʼ high plasticity.
On the other hand, the latter trend is based on the view that any measures under the juvenile law isallowed only for the benefit of a juvenile who has committed a delinquency. Because the juvenile does nothave sufficient judgment due to immaturity, if he is left as he is, he may repeat delinquencies and become
unable to live a decent or normal life. Therefore, the State intervenes to prevent this from occurring, for the
benefit of the juvenile himself. In this view, the Stateʼs intervention in juvenile delinquents can be explainedby the principle of protection (paternalism). This idea typically appears in the above-mentioned idea of parens
patriae.
According to this view, protective measures are taken not for the purpose of blame for juvenilesʼ
delinquency but on behalf of juveniles. In this sense, they are not sanctions. Therefore, protective measures
are completely different from criminal punishment, and the juvenile law will be regarded as a law for thewelfare of children like other social welfare laws.

II. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE JAPANESE JUVENILE ACT
A. Purpose of the Juvenile Act
In Japan, the first Juvenile Act was enacted in 1922. It was revised after World War II and the present
Juvenile Act came into force in 1948. Article 1 of the existing Juvenile Act provides that the purpose of thisAct is to subject delinquent juveniles to protective measures to correct their personality traits and modify
their environment, and to implement special measures for juvenile criminal cases, for the purpose of juvenilesʼ
sound development. Based on this provision, the basic idea of the Juvenile Act is the sound development ofjuveniles. This means that the purpose of the Juvenile Act is not to punish juveniles for crime or delinquency
they committed but to educate juveniles to prevent them from repeating a crime or delinquency. Because ofthis, the proceedings based on the Juvenile Act are called juvenile protection proceedings.
B. Outline of Proceedings under the Juvenile Act
1. Target of Proceedings
The target of the proceedings under the Juvenile Act is juveniles (defined as a person under the age of 20)
who have committed a delinquency. They include three types of juveniles: juvenile offenders, juveniles
engaged in illegal behavior, and pre-delinquent juveniles. Juvenile offenders are juveniles who havecommitted a crime. Juveniles engaged in illegal behavior are juveniles under 14 years of age who haveviolated any criminal law or regulation. Because the Penal Code provides that any juvenile under 14 years ofage has no criminal responsibility, an act by such a juvenile that violates a criminal law or regulation is not acriminal act. Therefore, no punishment is imposed on the juvenile under the Penal Code. However, theJuvenile Act deals with such acts too. Pre-delinquent juveniles are juveniles who meet any of the four criteria
specified in Article 3 (1) (iii) of the Juvenile Act (the “cause of pre-delinquency”) and, in light of theircharacteristics or environment, have the possibility to commit a crime or a violation of a criminal law or
regulation. The four criteria for pre-delinquency are: (a) having a propensity not to submit to legitimate
supervision by the custodian; (b) staying away from home without a justifiable cause; (c) associating withpersons with a criminal nature or immoral persons, or frequenting places of ill repute; and (d) having apropensity to engage in harming the morals of the juvenile or those of others. None of these violates acriminal law or regulation.
In this way, the Juvenile Act also covers the violations that are not regarded as crimes under the Penal
Code because the offenders have not reached the age of criminal responsibility; and it also covers juveniles
who have committed pre-delinquent acts that do not fall under corpus delicti (crime).
2.

Flow of Proceedings
The proceedings for juvenile delinquents under the Juvenile Act are greatly different from the criminal
proceedings for adults. I would like to show the characteristics of juvenile protection proceedings ascompared with criminal proceedings.

250

165TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALFirstly, the court of the first instance for an adult criminal case is a district or summary court in principle,
while a juvenile case is under the exclusive jurisdiction of a family court. Because of this, a juvenile case isreferred from a police officer or a public prosecutor to a family court. Each family court has not only judges
but also family court investigating officers. Both a judge and a family court investigating officer jointly deal
with each case. Most family court investigating officers are specialists in psychology, pedagogy, sociology, etc.
and are expected to investigate each juvenileʼs problems and play a part in determining the most suitabledisposition for the juvenileʼs improvement and rehabilitation.
Secondly, the principle of discretionary prosecution is adopted for adult criminal cases, under which publicprosecutors have the power to suspend prosecution. On the other hand, in juvenile cases, the investigating
authority refers all cases to family courts, in principle, as long as there is any suspicion. This is based on thefollowing view: even if a juvenile case seems trivial from its objective aspects, it may indicate the juvenileʼs
deep criminality; therefore, it is necessary to examine it well and carry out the most appropriate measures forthe juvenile; and the agency appropriate for such examination and judgment is not the investigating authority
but a family court that has sufficient staff.
Moreover, if a juvenile who violates criminal law is under the age of 14 or a pre-delinquent juvenile isunder the age of 14, the case will be referred to a child consultation center, which is a welfare institute forchildren. Only if the center decides that, instead of taking measures itself, it is better for a family court todecide how to deal with the juvenile, and sends the case to a family court, the family court will deal with thecase. This is called the principle of prior deliberation by a child welfare institution. This is based on the viewthat it is better for juveniles under the age of 14 to be treated under the Child Welfare Act, which has themain purpose to promote the welfare of children, instead of being treated under the Juvenile Act which is apart of the criminal justice system.
Thirdly, in the criminal proceedings, if an indictment is brought and the court accepts the case, a public
trial will begin after some preparatory proceedings are carried out. On the other hand, in a juvenile case, after
the case is accepted by a family court, a family court investigating officer carries out the investigation as towhat problems the juvenile has concerning his characteristics and family environment and what measures
will be necessary for improving the problems. Moreover, the juvenile may receive assessment, or mental andphysical diagnosis carried out by the expert in the Juvenile Classification Home. Because the criminal
proceedings in Japan have no pre-sentence investigation system, this point is one of the great differences
between the juvenile protection proceedings and the criminal proceedings. In addition, during theinvestigation, the family court investigating officer not only carries out the investigation but also actively
encourages the juvenile to receive reformatory education. In this way, the juvenile is given treatment
through the process of the proceeding. It is another difference from the criminal proceedings that thispractice has been squarely approved.
Fourthly, in a criminal case, it is examined during the trial whether the defendant committed the charged
offence. In a juvenile hearing, however, examination is carried out as to not only whether the juvenilecommitted the delinquency, but also whether the juvenile is likely to commit a delinquency again. This factor
is called the “need of protection”. Because of this, even if it is found that the juvenile committed thedelinquency, no family court hearing will be held and the proceedings will end if it is found as a result of theinvestigation that the juvenile has no need of protection. In addition, if need of protection disappears as aresult of a judgeʼs encouragement or the like after the beginning of the hearing, no disposition will berendered and the hearing will end.
Fifthly, the judge, the juvenile, and the juvenileʼs guardian attend the hearing without fail. If an attendant(i. e., a defense lawyer in the criminal procedure) is appointed, the attendant has the right to attend thehearing. On the other hand, the public prosecutor is allowed to attend the hearing with the permission of thecourt only if the case is serious and the prosecutorʼs attendance is necessary for finding the facts of thedelinquency.
Sixthly, a juvenile hearing is held in camera. The hearing itself is not open to the public and the results are
not published. The principle of confidentiality is applied not only to the hearing but also to the investigation at
the family court and the investigation by police or prosecutor.

251

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 102

Seventhly, while the adversary system is applied to the trial in a criminal case, the inquisitional system isapplied to the juvenile hearing. Because the purpose of the hearing is not to examine the juvenileʼs criminal
responsibility but to clarify the problems of the juvenile himself and his environment, and determine the mostappropriate measure for the juvenileʼs improvement and rehabilitation, it is more appropriate to apply
proceedings whereby every person concerned, including judge, attendant and prosecutor, cooperate witheach other, than to apply proceedings whereby the parties are opposed to each other. In addition, to use ahearing as an opportunity for reformatory education and counseling, it is desirable for the judge to advancethe proceedings, talking directly to the juvenile.
In this way, to respond flexibly to each juvenileʼs problems by a method similar to case work, it isdesirable to apply proceedings suitable for each case at the courtʼs discretion rather than establishing a strict
form of proceedings beforehand. For this reason, the Juvenile Act has very few provisions concerning
examination of evidence and rules of evidence at a hearing.
However, because the protective measures also restrain the freedom of juveniles against their will, it isrequired to guarantee due process even in the case of a family court hearing, It especially applies to the cases
in which the juvenile denies the alleged delinquency. Therefore, at present, some provisions for guaranteeing
the juvenileʼs procedural rights are placed in the rules of juvenile proceedings: concretely speaking, notifying
the juvenile of the facts constituting the alleged delinquency and giving him opportunities to present his
defense; notifying him of the right to remain silent and the right to appoint an attendant. In addition, in thepractical affairs of a juvenile hearing, when the juvenile denies the alleged delinquency, the court is supposed
to guarantee the opportunity to cross examineimportant witnesses. Furthermore, in order to secure ajuvenileʼs procedural rights effectually, it is very important to receive the assistance of an attorney. From thisviewpoint, when the juvenile and his or her guardian cannot employ an attorney themselves due to poverty
etc., the court can appoint an attendant who is an attorney for the juvenile. This system was introduced in
2007, and the range has been extended to cases where the juvenile is detained for an offence that is
punishable by the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for more than three years. It covers afairly large range. For example, this system also applies to cases involving theft.
Eighthly, if, in a family court hearing, the facts of the delinquency are proven, and it is found that thejuvenile is in need of protection, the court renders a decision to impose protective measures. There are three
types of protective measures: (1) probation; (2) referral to a childrenʼs self-reliance support facility or a foster
home; and (3) referral to a juvenile training school. Which measure should be applied is determined according
to the juvenileʼs need for protection in light of which measure is the most appropriate for giving reformatory
education to the juvenile and preventing him from committing a delinquency again. The content of thedelinquency is only indirectly taken into consideration as an important factor for the judgment about need forprotection.
On the other hand, if a family court judge finds it more appropriate to impose criminal punishment on thejuvenile rather than protective measures, the court will make a decision to refer the case to a publicprosecutor. After the public prosecutor files the case, a criminal trial will be held under the Code of Criminal
Procedure as in an adult criminal case. There is no special proceeding for juvenile defendants. However, there
are special rules about punishment. For example, indefinite imprisonment can be imposed on juveniles, unlike
adults.
C. Legal Characteristics of the Juvenile Act
What characteristics does the Juvenile Act of Japan have in light of the above-described trends and theprinciple of delinquency control? The enactment of the existing Juvenile Act in 1948 was greatly influenced
by the General Headquarters (GHQ) based on the idea of parens patriae, which was predominant in the US at
the time. It can be said that the framework of the present system is suitable for the principle of protection(paternalism), because the purpose of the system is to foster juvenilesʼ sound development, public prosecutors
are excluded from the hearing in principle, and family courts with expert staff impose protective measuresaccording to each juvenileʼs need for protection.
However, the existing Juvenile Act only covers juvenile offenders, juveniles engaged in illegal behavior,and pre-delinquent juveniles; it does not cover a wide range of juveniles in need of protection like the juvenile
courts in the US in the 1940ʼs. In addition, the idea of parens patriae is based on the view that protective
252

165TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

measures for juveniles are completely different from criminal punishment. As opposed to this, the existing
Juvenile Act includes provisions concerning criminal proceedings and punishment after cases are referred to
public prosecutors and the juveniles are indicted. These provisions also reflect the juvenilesʼ sounddevelopment specified in Article 1 of the Juvenile Act. In other words, in the existing Juvenile Act, protective
measures and punishment for juveniles coexist within the framework of the criminal justice system. In thissense, the existing Juvenile Act is not a system based on the idea of parens patriae in a pure sense. This isreflected also in the fact that the Child Welfare Act was enacted in addition to the Juvenile Act in 1947 afterWorld War II and, as a result, the treatment of juvenile delinquents was administered by two laws.
In this way, the Juvenile Act is not a welfare law in a pure sense but a law within the criminal justicesystem. Therefore, it is impossible to explain the intervention based on the Juvenile Act only by the principle
of protection, and it seems hard to deny that the intervention is based on the principle of harm. In otherwords, under the Juvenile Act, the Stateʼs intervention is based on both the principle of harm and theprinciple of protection. The two principles are not mutually exclusive, but justify measures for preventing
juveniles from committing a delinquency again through reformatory education. Although punishments andprotective measures are common as long as they are based on the principle of harm, the two are different
from each other in that protective measures aim for only special prevention, while punishment aims for
retribution and general prevention.

III. BACKGROUND AND CONTENTS OF RECENT REVISIONS OF THE
JUVENILE ACT
Although the Juvenile Act had not been revised for more than 50 years after it was enacted in 1948, it was
extensively revised in 2000, 2007, 2008, and 2014. These four revisions vary in contents, but they are common
in that all of them reduced special treatment for juveniles. Because the direction differs among the four
revisions, it cannot be simply summarized as making punishment for juvenile crimes stricter as statedfrequently by the opponents of the revisions. The following are explanations about the background to therevisions and the relations of the revisions to the basic principle of the Juvenile Act.
A. The Background of the Revisions
The revisions vary in content and background. The factors for the revisions can be roughly divided in thefollowing four:
1.

Clarification and Accurate Fact-finding of the Delinquency
The first factor is a request for the clarification and accurate fact-finding of the delinquency. Under theJuvenile Act, the family court intervenes on the ground of the juvenileʼs misconduct. Because the intervention
is disadvantageous to the juvenile, whatever the final purpose, in that it is accompanied by the limitation of
freedom against the juvenileʼs will, the existence of the delinquency, which serves as the ground for theintervention, must be proven. In addition, because the intervention is carried out by the family court as a
judicial agency, it is natural for the court to have the intention to determine the facts accurately.
Even before the revision in 2000, the view that the facts of the delinquency should be regarded as more
important factors in juvenile cases was firmly established for the family courtsʼ practical affairs. This was
based on the firm establishment of the view that the object investigated in a juvenile hearing is not only theneed for protection but also the facts constituting the alleged delinquency. Based on this view, attention has
been paid to the procedure for determining the facts of the delinquency. For example, this was reflected in
the Supreme Courtʼs decision that a family courtʼs examination of evidence about the delinquency must be
based on reasonable discretion and on the fact that the following view has become the main trend in thefamily courtsʼ practical affairs: the view is that the family courts are obliged to examine evidence at their own
discretion as long as the examination is necessary for discovering the truth, whether advantageous ordisadvantageous to juveniles.
In this way, the interpretation and practical use of the Juvenile Act were accumulated in the direction ofplacing importance on the facts of the delinquency. Recently, however, the courts encountered problems that
could not be solved in this practical way. As a result, some judges began to demand revision of the Act.
From the 1990s, there were a series of cases where finding the facts of the delinquency at family court
253

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 102

hearings was regarded as problematic. In such cases, the courtsʼ judgment differed as to whether juveniles
committed the delinquency. This revealed difficulties in finding facts at family court hearings if the juvenile
denied the alleged delinquency. It was pointed out that the fact finding procedure at family court hearings
under the then Juvenile Act had systematic problems if the juvenile fiercely disputed the alleged delinquency,
because of the following: (1) even if a case was serious and difficult, the hearing was held by only one judge;and (2) since a public prosecutor could not attend the hearing, if the judge finds it necessary to clarify facts,
the judge has to carry out acts disadvantageous to the juvenile, for example, impeach the witness who
testified in favor of the juvenile. As a result, the judge and the juvenile might look as if they had been opposed
to each other.
Responding to this criticism, the Juvenile Act was revised in 2000. In the revision, the collegiate court
system was adopted, public prosecutors became able to participate in hearings to avoid any adversarial
situation between the court and the juvenile and to obtain multiple viewpoints, and a system for theparticipation of a court-appointed attendant, who is an attorney, was introduced in the case of a prosecutorʼsparticipation.
Subsequently the Juvenile Act was revised in 2007, responding to several serious crimes committed byyounger children. In this revision, some provisions were added to establish the policeʼs power to investigate
cases where juveniles under 14 years of age violated a criminal law or regulation. These provisions wereadded to solve the problem in the following situation: because the police could not investigate sufficiently andthe child consultation centers did not have sufficient investigating ability to clarify the facts of thedelinquency, sufficient evidence was not collected concerning the facts of the delinquency when family courts
accepted cases, resulting in difficulties of fact finding in the hearing. In this sense, it can be said that thisrevision also aimed to find the facts of the delinquency accurately.
The latest revision in 2014 expanded the range of cases in which public prosecutors and court-appointed
attendants can participate in the hearing. This revision also primarily aimed to improve the appropriatenessof the procedure for finding the facts of the delinquency in the hearing.
Such improvement of the procedure for finding the facts of the delinquency was encouraged not only by
the above-mentioned demand from within the family courts but also by the increased attention of the generalpublic to issues of juvenile justice. The background to this trend included the following: demand for thetransparency of the public agenciesʼ activities was expanded to the juvenile protection proceedings; and social
interest in victims sharply increased from the second half of the 1990s.
Specifically, one of the grounds for approval of public prosecutorsʼ participation through the revision in2000 was establishing the trust of victims and other members of the general public in family court hearings.
In addition, in the revision in 2007, a provision was enacted to the effect that the directors of the childconsultation centers must, in principle, send certain kinds of serious cases to family courts, while maintaining
the principle of prior deliberation by child welfare institutions. This aimed to increase the transparency of the
judicial proceedings for the general public and victims through the family courtsʼ findings of fact of thedelinquency and determination of disposition, instead of keeping juvenile cases at the child consultation
centers.
2.

Juvenilesʼ Criminal Responsibility
The second factor for the revisions is that increasing attention was paid to the view that if a serious crime
is committed by a juvenile, an appropriate punishment should be imposed on the juvenile. Generally, this isregarded as demand to impose stricter punishments for juvenile crimes.
This view itself was not necessarily new. Under the former Juvenile Act, a case should be referred to a
public prosecutor if a criminal punishment is suitable for the crime. It involves the cases in which it seems
impossible to reform the juvenile by protective measures and it is possible to do so, but it is inappropriate totreat the juvenile by protective measures due to the facts of the case or the social influence of the case. Many
people supported this opinion, which was based on the following view. Because the juvenile justice system
occupies a part of the criminal justice system, when the family court decides how to treat a juvenile who
committed a delinquency, it is not allowable to ignore the viewpoint of social defense and general prevention.
In addition, even the juvenile justice system cannot work well unless it has the support of the general public.
254

165TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

In practice, serious cases were referred to public prosecutors more frequently than less serious cases. On
the other hand, because the principle of giving priority to protection was deeply rooted in the family courts, acautious attitude was assumed toward the referral of cases to public prosecutors. However, since the second
half of the 1990s, there was a trend across society towards the imposition of stricter punishment for crime. A
series of atrocious crimes by juveniles occurred, and the above-mentioned trend applied to juvenile cases too.
The case that had the greatest impact on society was a 14-year-old boyʼs murder of children in 1997. In thiscase, the boy, a third-year student in junior high school, hit an elementary school girl on the street with ahammer. The girl died from a brain contusion. About two months later, he strangled an elementary schoolboy, cut off his head, and left it in front of the main gate of a junior high school.
As a result of this situation, the Juvenile Act was revised in 2000 concerning the referral of juveniles topublic prosecutors. Two points were revised. First, although previously juveniles under 16 years of age could
not be referred to public prosecutors, it became possible to send juveniles aged 14 and 15 to publicprosecutors and impose criminal punishment on them. The other point was that although judgment
regarding whether to send juveniles to public prosecutors was previously made according to uniform
standards, it was provided that if a juvenile aged 16 or older killed someone by a willful criminal act, thejuvenile must be referred to a public prosecutor in principle.
According to the view that even juveniles should undergo reasonable punishment if they commit serious
crimes, the punishments imposed after the referral of juveniles to public prosecutors should be proportional
to their crimes with consideration for their ages. Responding to this opinion, the Juvenile Act was revised in2014 to make it possible to impose punishment proportional to criminal responsibility. To this aim, themaximum term of indefinite imprisonment was raised from 5-10 years to 10-15 years.
3.

Consideration for Crime Victims
The third factor for the revisions is the demand for considering crime victims and protecting their rights
and interests. In Japan, victims originally had no special status even in criminal proceedings. That was
especially true in juvenile protection proceedings, the basic principle of which is sound development ofjuveniles. For example, victims could neither observe the hearing nor receive notice of its result on the
ground that the hearing is not open to the public.
However, in a series of cruel serious offences in the 1990s, when victims spoke out and the press covered
their stories, social concern about crime victims increased rapidly. In response, policy measures considering
the rights of victims were developed by the police, prosecutors and the courts. In 2000, the act was amended
to protect victimʼs interests in both criminal and juvenile protection proceedings
In the revision in 2000, three systems were introduced. The first is to notify victims of the results of thehearing. The second is to enable victims to read and copy hearing records. The third enabled the family court
to hear the opinions of victims.
The relevant provisions of the Juvenile Act are summarized as follows. For the first system, thenotification to the victim, upon a request from the victim, the family court shall inform the victim of (i) the
name and residence of the juvenile and the legal representative of the juvenile and (ii) the date of the ruling,
the main text thereof and summary of the reasons. The second system, inspection and copying of records by
the victim, authorizes the victim to inspect or copy records, excluding the so-called “social record”. The third
system, hearing of opinions by victims, requires the family court, upon a request from the victim, to hear by
itself or order a family court investigating officer to hear from the victim.
These systems were introduced aiming at a victimʼs own interests, without bringing it into question
whether it contributes to the juvenileʼs sound development or not. These systems ensure that the existence ofa victim is clearly recognized by the Juvenile Act, and it was clarified that the victim has a special legal status
in juvenile protection proceedings. However, all systems introduced by this revision are accepted on thecondition that they do not hinder the sound development of the juvenile. For example, the hearing of opinionsfrom victims is not always carried out in front of the juvenile at the hearing, unlike a victimʼs statement of
opinion in a criminal trial. This is because there is a risk that the statement by the victim may obstruct theeducational function of the family court hearing and the entirety of the proceedings in that case if the victim
can always be heard during the hearing upon his request. For example, suppose what might happen if the255

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 102

victim displays intense anger directed at the juvenile during the hearing.
After the revision in 2000, victims and victim support groups requested further revision, noting that thecontents of the above-mentioned revision were insufficient. In addition, the Basic Act on Crime Victims wasenacted in 2004, and in this act the expansion of victim participation in juvenile protection proceedings wascalled for. In response, the Juvenile Act was revised again in 2008. In this revision, two new systems for thevictim were introduced. The first is to enable victims to observe hearings. The second is explaining the statusof hearings to victims.
Among these, the first system permits, upon the request of the victims, observation of hearings by victims
under limited circumstances. The family court may permit the victim to observe the hearing of a case of ajuvenile who committed an intentional criminal act that caused the death or injury of the victim. However,observing the hearing is not permitted when a juvenile under 12 years old committed a criminal act. The
second system allows, upon request from the victim, the family court to explain the status of the hearing to
the victim. For example, the family court may explain the role of the juvenileʼs attendant, the procedure of thefamily court, and what the juvenile said during his or her statement in the hearing. There is no limitation
based on the type of crime committed.
These two measures are permitted when the family court finds it unlikely to hinder the sounddevelopment of the juvenile. On this point, the fundamental view since revision in 2000 has been maintained.
On the other hand, in criminal proceedings, a victim participation system was introduced in 2007. In thissystem, the victim of certain serious offences can attend court on the trial date, examine witnesses withincertain limitations, ask the accused questions and state an opinion on the findings of fact or the application of
the law. In comparison, the involvement of victims in juvenile protection proceedings is limited in order toachieve the sound development of the juvenile, which is the purpose of the Juvenile Act.
4.

Improvement of the Appropriateness and Effectiveness of the Juvenile Protective Proceedings
The fourth factor for the revisions is the demand for making the determination and execution of theprotective measures more appropriate and effective in practice. For example, in the revision in 2007, theminimum age for referring juveniles to juvenile training schools was lowered from 14 to about 12, responding
to the opinion of some practitioners that, from the viewpoint of rehabilitation, it is sometimes desirable torefer juveniles under 14 years of age to juvenile training schools rather than to childrenʼs self-reliance support
facilities to give them reformatory education earlier. In addition, the Juvenile Act was also revised to make itpossible to send juveniles on probation to juvenile training schools if they violate probationary conditions,
responding to a remark that the effectiveness of probation could not be secured because there was no means
to cope with cases where juveniles on probation violate their conditions of probation. Although some people
criticized these revisions for promoting stricter punishment, such criticism is based on a misunderstanding,for the revisions make it possible to treat juveniles more appropriately according to each case and aim tostrengthen the treatment of juveniles. The same is true for the revision in 2014 to expand the range of cases
in which court-appointed attendants can participate, because the expansion contributes to the determinationof appropriate treatment through environmental coordination with the participation of an attendant from thehearing stage, as in the case of improving the appropriateness of the procedure for finding facts of thedelinquency.
B. Influence on the Basic Principle of the Juvenile Act
None of the four revisions made from these various factors touched Article 1 of the Juvenile Act, which
specifies juvenilesʼ sound development as the basic principle of the act. When the revision in 2008 was underdiscussion, there was the opinion that even the juvenile protective proceedings should place equal importanceon both the sound development of juveniles and the protection of victimsʼ rights and interests, for the Basic
Act on Crime Victims covers juvenile cases. However, this opinion was not adopted.
Among the above-described four factors, the fourth factor aims to improve the system for contributing tojuvenilesʼ sound development, which clearly supports the basic principle of the act. The first factor, whichaims to improve the procedure for finding the facts of the delinquency is also consistent with the basic
principle of the act, because accurate fact-finding of the delinquency is essential for determining appropriate
treatment of juveniles. However, depending on how to prepare the procedure, it may go against the basic
256165TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

idea. The revision in 2000 took this into consideration and maintained the existing inquisitional system insteadof adopting the opinion that the adversarial system should be introduced into juvenile hearings too.
Responding to this basic thinking, a system unusual from the viewpoint of comparative law was adopted
concerning the participation of the public prosecutor. Although public prosecutors were allowed toparticipate in hearings, they were neither a party to the proceedings nor a plaintiff demanding punishment,
but a cooperator for the hearing who participates only in the stage of fact-finding of the delinquency to theextent necessary.
The third factor for the revisions ‒ consideration for victims ‒ brought into the Juvenile Act aheterogeneous element that does not directly contribute to juvenilesʼ sound development. However, allsystems introduced as a result of the revisions are limited to those approved as long as they do not hinder thesound development of the juvenile. Therefore, those systems have been designed not to contradict the basic
principle of the Juvenile Act.
What is problematic is the second factor. If it aims only to make punishment for juvenile crimes stricter, it
seems to contradict the basic principle of the Juvenile Act. What is the most problematic is the revision of theprovision concerning the referral of the case to public prosecutors. During the process of legislation, theproposer of the revision explained that this revision aimed to promote juvenilesʼ sound development by
increasing their awareness of social responsibility and their normative consciousness. In that sense, thisrevision was also regarded as being within the framework of the juvenilesʼ sound development, because it
does not aim to impose severe punishment for serious crimes, but to prevent crimes by developing juvenilesʼ
responsibility and normative consciousness. I think it doubtful whether this explanation is persuasive, but this
explanation somehow reflects the legislatorsʼ efforts to protect the basic principle of the Juvenile Act, despite
efforts to reject the basic principle itself.

IV. RECENT TRENDS
In Japan, the suffrage age, the age of adulthood under the Civil Code, and the age of adulthood under theJuvenile Act have been uniformly set at 20. However, as a result of the revision of the Public Offices Election
Act, the suffrage age was lowered to 18, and the new suffrage age came into force in June last year.
Consequently, consideration is required for the treatment of the age of adulthood under the Civil Code andother laws and ordinances. With regard to the age of adulthood under the Civil Code, the Legislative Councilof the Ministry of Justice has already submitted a report to the effect that the age of adulthood should belowered to 18 if some conditions (useful for protection of young adults) are fulfilled. Following that, thediscussion about lowering the age of adulthood under the Juvenile Act will begin in the Legislative Council ofthe Ministry of Justice soon. At present, this is the hottest topic concerning the Juvenile Act.
There is strong objection to lowering the age of adulthood under the Juvenile Act. Those who oppose
lowering the age of adulthood insist that the Juvenile Act has so far effectively functioned to givereformatory education to juveniles who have committed crimes at the age of 18 and 19 and prevented themfrom committing crime again. Therefore, if the age of adulthood under the Juvenile Act is lowered, the repeat
offenses by persons in this age group will likely increase because the application of the proceedings andprotective measures under the Juvenile Act is denied. In addition, there is the opinion that the mental
maturity of the person at the age of 18 and 19 is lower than before, and therefore they should not be treatedas adults. Concerning the lowering of the age of adulthood in other areas of law, they insist that the age ofadulthood should be determined according to the purpose of each law, and therefore it is unnecessary to unify
the age of adulthood in different fields of law.
There is also the opinion that even if such a view (that it is unnecessary to unify the age of adulthood) is
generally correct, it is necessary to coordinate ages if laws have common grounds for applying different
treatment between adults and minors. On the ground that juveniles are immature and highly plastic, from theviewpoint of reformatory education, the Juvenile Act allows guardian-like intervention by the State, which is
not allowed in the case of adults. Because minors are subject to their parentsʼ supervision under the present
Civil Code, there is no inconsistency in the treatment of minors under the two laws. However, if the age ofadulthood is lowered to 18 under the Civil Code, it might not allow the State to make guardian-likeinterventions against the will of 18- and 19-year-old juveniles, who are not subject to their parentsʼ
supervision. For this reason, the age of adulthood under the Juvenile Act should be lowered in accordance
257

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 102

with the age of adulthood under the Civil Code. On the other hand, in order to eliminate the negative effects ofthe exclusion of 18- and 19-year-old juveniles from the target of the Juvenile Act as much as possible, it isnecessary to establish a system for giving special treatment to 18- and 19-year olds and other young adultoffenders through correction and rehabilitation.

258