Leiden University Scholarly Publications

In 2008, a victim participation system was introduced in Japan, which

enabled crime victims to participate in criminal proceedings. One of the goals of the system

was to correct the wrong done to victims due to their lack of previous involvement, thus

giving crime victims what they “naturally desire.” Employing Malcolm Feeley’s analytical

framework to make sense of planned legal change, this Article shows that the new system

emerged against the background of a combination of international trends: victim activism

and public perceptions of crime getting out of hand. It finds that for reasons that are not

well understood, only a small percentage of victims have made use of the new system.

When it comes to the other courtroom players, judges and prosecutors are generally

committed to accommodating participating victims, both formally and in practice. The

In 2008, a victim participation system was introduced in Japan, which

enabled crime victims to participate in criminal proceedings. One of the goals of the system

was to correct the wrong done to victims due to their lack of previous involvement, thus

giving crime victims what they “naturally desire.” Employing Malcolm Feeley’s analytical

framework to make sense of planned legal change, this Article shows that the new system

emerged against the background of a combination of international trends: victim activism

and public perceptions of crime getting out of hand. It finds that for reasons that are not

well understood, only a small percentage of victims have made use of the new system.

When it comes to the other courtroom players, judges and prosecutors are generally

committed to accommodating participating victims, both formally and in practice. The

new system further limits defense lawyers’ room to maneuver, while also presenting new

opportunities for lawyers to represent victims and champion their rights. This Article

concludes that the new system expresses a continued commitment to protecting victims’

rights and interests, and that the new system contributes to remedying victims’ exclusion

from their case, even if theextent to which it succeeds in giving victims what they desire

remains uncertain.