Jury Deliberation As a Site of Intersection between the Legal and Ordinary Consciousness: Interaction Analysis of Judges’ Management of Deliberation and the Phenomenon of ‘Alienation’

Japan's Lay Judge System, introduced in 2009, was designed to adjudicate serious criminal cases. The panel, composed of three professional judges and six ordinary citizens, determines not only the guilt or innocence of the accused but also the severity of punishment in cases of guilt.

This study focuses on one aspect of the phenomenon of "legal alienation" through a detailed interaction analysis of jury deliberations within this criminal justice system. It examines how the everyday consciousness of lay citizens intersects, aligns, conflicts, and compromises with the legal consciousness of professionals at the micro-level of social interaction.

Previous studies have explored how lay people’s actions and consciousness in legal contexts become alienated through the technical rationality, specialized terminology, and procedures inherent in legal settings. While discourse-level analyses have been conducted, few studies have specifically examined such phenomena within the context of jury deliberations.

We collaborated with legal professionals to conduct realistic simulated trials and jury deliberations. All interactions were video-recorded and analyzed using conversation analysis. Our study identified several specific practices employed by professional judges to manage deliberations. Among these, the practice of "formulating"—which involves ostensibly summarizing and paraphrasing lay judges’ contributions while subtly reshaping and altering certain aspects—played a crucial role. These practices subtly, but accountably, steer the discussion toward a legally relevant framework at critical points in the deliberation.

Such practices address a core dilemma faced by professional judges: balancing the need to provide lay judges with ample opportunities to express their views while simultaneously guiding the deliberation within the bounds of legal standards of evidence and proof.

By highlighting these micro-level interactional practices, this research offers new insights into how legal professionals navigate the tension between lay participation and legal relevance, shedding light on previously overlooked aspects of the intricate phenomenon of "legal alienation."