Talk:Judicial system of Japan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments[edit]

This "unusual" system of the people approving the Supreme Court judges is the "Missouri Plan" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_plan It seems it was introduced in Japan after WW2. - Pepper 150.203.2.85 00:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be reworked to reflect the reality of the incredibly high conviction rate in Japan, which is widely cited as in the 99.30% to 99.97%. Omission does not benefit readers. In fact, the Japanese courts are merely symbolic, police and prosecutors determine guilt or innocence long before a judge ever sees a case.

One cannot write encycropedia article with one's personal prejudice. 99% conviction rate may reflect either rigged nature of court proceeding (a view which you appear to support), or simply that the prosecutor will not try a case unless s/he is 99% sure of conviction. Whichever the case, please add content only from verified source. Moreover, this article is riddled with Occidental prejudiece about Oriental culture being feudalistic, backward and inferior. Criticism should focus on the system, legal, political and economic, not your personal notion of Japanese being inferior race. Vapour

The citation you requested has been added, the information about conviction rates is relevant to an article about courts, and does not reflect any "personal notion of Japanese being inferior race," kindly refrain from such accusations.203.216.97.70 13:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 April 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. After two relists, there's clearly no consensus for a move here. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames let's talk about it 08:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial system of Japan → Judiciary of Japan – reason Standardizing the name of main articles in Category:Judiciaries. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC) relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose ambiguous naming wikt:judiciary means the body of judges. While "judicial system" clearly refers to the judicial system and not the body of judges -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: its actually a rather logical move. "Judiciary" means the entire system, not just judges. Its more succinct and can be made uniform across other nation's judiciary pages. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as ambiguous, and as an attempt to force American English usage of the word "judiciary" onto the relevant articles. RGloucester — ☎ 15:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It is not ambiguous, this is simply a more WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT (with other countries) way of saying the same thing. And where's the evidence that "judiciary" is an American term? The BBC uses it often enough.[1] Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, this is exactly where the trouble comes in. Take a look at some of the articles you brought up. Look, for example, at this one, the first in the list. It says "Barrister and part-time judge Constance Briscoe, who was jailed for 16 months for lying to police, has been removed from the judiciary". In Commonwealth usage, "judiciary" usually refers to the body of judges, not to the judicial system. In this particular case, for example, that's what's meant. "Removed from the judiciary" means that the judge was stripped of her post as a judge. This usage does not really exist in American English, which is why it is somewhat of an ENGVAR issue, and also why said ambiguity exists. RGloucester — ☎ 14:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion[edit]

Following the discussion above, is there a case for moving all of the other "Judiciary of..." pages to "Judicial system of..."? Surely what's true for this one is also true for the others? WP:TITLECON Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

District Courts - Locations[edit]

The article currently says

There are 50 district courts in the prefectural capitals

. There's only 47 Prefectures of Japan, though. I found a pdf linked at the end of this sentence that says that all Prefectures each have 1 district court, except for Hokkaido which is split into 4 districts (https://www.courts.go.jp/english/vc-files/courts-en/file/2020_Courts_in_Japan.pdf).

Additionally found a Japanese site that lists all 50 district courts as each of the 47 prefectural capitals, with 3 additional district courts in Hakodate, Kushiro, and Asahikawa (https://www.courts.go.jp/courthouse/map/index.html). These cities are the 3 largest cities in Hokkaido after Sapporo [[2]]

174.74.23.232 (talk) 04:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Judicial_system_of_Japan&oldid=1201570157"