Talk:Criminal justice system of Japan

This article is written entirely from a fascist perspective
This will change. Japan's criminal "justice" system is an absolute joke. It's nice to see weaboos coming in to support glorious mother Nippon, but this should be Japan's second greatest shame.

It's time to bring this mockery of justice to light. I will be watching this article closely, although I suspect my attempts to change it will be vehemently opposed by Japanophiles.69.9.214.60 (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

really? I read the whole main page and didn't see any support from an anime-fan.

Merge from The Japanese Justice System and its 99.97% Conviction rate
I do not think that this information belongs as a separate article. The title alone rings POV-biased to me, though it is interesting material and, if valid, would be valuable in another article. Where shall we put this? Judicial system of Japan? Criminal justice system of Japan? Juries in Japan? I am eager to hear others' suggestions. LordAmeth 11:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not too sure about this content, but Criminal justice system of Japan would probably be the best place if it is to be anywhere.   The second paragraph in particular appears to be POV.   Morwen - Talk 11:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. This would make a good section in the Criminal justice system of Japan article. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree. This should be merged and unreferenced POV cleaned up. -- ElectricEye  ( talk ) 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge, congratulations to ElectricEye on recognising this little gem. SmithBlue 07:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Another reason to merge is the enencyclopedic POV title. imho of course. -- ElectricEye  ( talk ) 07:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got a bias that makes the title look negative POV to me but for others it would be very positive POV - one Indonesian judge, to show his fairness, stated that he had never found an accused drug dealer not guiltly. 3 mistakes by the public prosecutor in every 10,000 cases - very impressive but still not good enough for the Toyota assembly line. (humour?) SmithBlue 08:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Merged. -- ElectricEye  ( talk ) 22:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Confessions obtained from 95% of all people arrested
In The Economist from Feb 10th-16th 2007 page 57 it says: "Japan is unique among democratic countires in that confessions are obtained from 95% of all people arrested, and that its courts convict 99.9% of all the suspects brought before them." The conviction rate is already mentioned in this Wikipedia article, the confession rate is not - but I'm somewhat doubtful if this really is true. --Schandi 06:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The 95% number sounds correct. But, I think that the means of gathering the 95% confession is somewhat controversial.  Does The Economist mention any of the interrogation techniques which are used by the police in gathering the confession? Human rights in Japan makes allusions to this too, but, it would be nice if there was a citation from a well-respected publication.  Neier 12:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have checked the original reference which is the source of "conviction based on confession alone" allegation. I highly doubt that Bar association of Japan would make such simplified allegation. Anyway, why is it that some outrageous allegation about Japan (or non Western countries) are readily accepted without any critical thinking. I remember while back about hoax news about 1000s of Japanese people being fooled into buying baby sheep thinking that it was dog. Is it some sort of built in prejudice about savagery of non white? A common sense would tell you that no civilized society would survive under such corrupt judicial system.

Oh, the reason most conviction accompany confession is that it speed up the sentencing process. Even if prosecutors think they have enough evidences to convict, they prefer to avoid arguing over evidence in the court which is time consuming. So first thing they do is to present the evidence to the defense and wait for confession before pressing charge.

Due to the wikipedia rule, I'm not going to dispute the validity of article written by Western media. Still, I highly doubt that majority of English language newspaper article are written by someone who can read Japanese even at elementary school level. I met some in Japan who make living writing about Japan and none can read let alone write Japanese. I hear that the situation is pretty much the same in any reporting involving non English speaking countries. Vapour (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If any editor can find sources showing that Western media is inaccurately portraying the conviction rate and methods used in Japan then pls bring them here. At present the article reflects the sources available. (These sources are seen as reliable in other matters.) SmithBlue (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I says, I'm not going to bend verifiability rule. Anyway, due to extensive use of Chinese characters, it is impossible to be functionally literate in Japanese without at least 5 years of formal instruction at University level institute. The fact that only handful of Japan correspondence journalists list any formal education in Japanese in their profile says a lot. It is far more astonishing considering that there are ten of thousands of Japanese nationals who get university bachelor degree in English speaking countries. On the other hand, someone like Karel van Wolferen made million writing about Japan and he can't even speak Japanese at functional level after living over a decade in Japan. Vapour (talk)
 * While what you present does mean we should be cautious, I suggest that "The International Bar Association", ("which encompasses the Japanese Federation Of Bar Associations cited problems in its "Interrogation of Criminal Suspects in Japan"), is a well respected body which would not make spurious claims that conflicted with the position of its Japanese members. I also question your belief that "no civilized society would survive under such corrupt judicial system" pointing to the unacceptably high rates of false convictions as revealed by DNA testing of old evidence. These false convictions have been found in many civilized societies and point to a widespread mispractice by police. In all I think presenting the sources we have at the moment is something that we can do with an acceptable degree of confidence in their portraying accurately the situation. SmithBlue (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ACSE describes themself as "a Japanese Wikipedian" and is editing on this article, contributing to the section relevant to this discusion. Good to have a native speaker here! SmithBlue (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Another Western normally RS reports a 99%+ conviction rate: BBC News: Japan urged to end 'false confessions' (5 October 2009). Based on a complaint from Amnesty International, the story also mentions the Japanese belief that confessions are the "king of evidence", that "Suspects can be held for up to 23 days before they are charged," that they have no access to lawyers, and may be subject to "many, many hours of repeated questions and sometimes sleep deprivation". --71.174.162.192 (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One important step that's being overlooked is the indictment to trial step. They may decide to go to trial, with overwhelming evidence, but following the 23-day detention, there is an indictment, where the suspect is formally charged. They don't do this without all the evidence they need. They then have additional time between the indictment and the start of the actual trial to persuade the suspect to confess. If the have all the evidence, then the prosecutor can exchange some leniency for a confession. Thus, the suspect confesses, and the prosecutor and the government get to claim these high percentages. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Verifiable and reliable sources
The recent edits claiming corruption in Japanese police need to have WP:VER verifiable and WP:RS reliable sources quoted with the material. Otherwise no reader or editor can tell if the material is accurate or not. Please discuss here before re-adding material without references. SmithBlue (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I also would like to request some sources for the "99%" percent rate (the page is edited as such). The Economist and the BBC news are of course mentioning it, but I would prefer the original source for this statistic. JuliusSimplus (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

History: Ln. 7
I noticed a problem within in the information about flogging given on line seven. It says that a whole village could be flogged or put to death, but then does not go on to specify if they even did; or if so to what extent and how common it was. I find this to be an important bit of information because without it, the article could lead to a misconception rather than solid fact. If you are reading this thank you for your consideration, and I hope to see this remedied.

-Searchman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.29.214 (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Grammar and Syntax
It would seem as if large sections of this page were written by a non-English speaker. There are several instances of subject-verb agreement errors. I would suggest that a qualified editor revise this page to correct these grammatical errors.

Question:I assumed and read, from Philip Reichel,"Japanese trials are not bifurcated"(2008). Yet, this article states that trial and sentencing are separate. Thebestest216 (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

In the section Conviction rate, the first sentence of paragraph eight doesn't make much sense. Please clarify? I don't know Japanese, so I can't read the original article to contribute a better translation. Could it mean "In cases of murder..."?

"In murder, U.S. police arrested 19,000 people for 26,000 murders, in which 75% were prosecuted and courts convicted 12,000 people. In Japan, 1,800 people were arrested for 1,300 murders, but prosecutors tried only 43%. Had the allegation that Japanese prosecutors use weak evidence mostly based on (forced) confessions to achieve convictions been true, the larger proportion of arrests would have resulted in prosecutions and eventual conviction. But the opposite is true. In fact, the data indicates that Japanese prosecutors bring charges only when the evidence is overwhelming and likelihood of conviction is near absolute, which gives a greater incentive for the accused to confess and aim for a lighter sentence, which, in turn, results in a high rate for confession."Sdsures (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I found a great report that explains how forced confessions in Japan occur in a balanced out manner.
I won't confirm everything advocates have been shoving out to the media(advocates have exaggerated in the past for political gain), but I was able to find balanced out report on forced confessions in Japan occur. The report claims that police have limited search powers and that as a result are more likely to fall back on confessions: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20810572

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criminal justice system of Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717114059/http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail_main?id=15&vm=4&re= to http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail_main?id=15&vm=4&re=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute, Initiated May 2019
It seems that many of parts of the article seem to use overly positive language, like "Innovative aspects of the codes notwithstanding..." or makes statements like: "However, most miscarriage of justice cases in Japan are, indeed, the results of conviction solely based on the confession of the accused." without providing context around how often those things happen. The conviction rate section is also a complete mess, but that is covered by an existing dispute.

Other issues include saying that: "Activists claim that the Japanese justice system..." without providing any context who they are, or if they represent a majority of people in Japan.

The word safeguard is also used a lot without providing context on if the "safeguards" are effective or not. Multilocus (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The article seems very biased. There's a BBC report (link) explaining how the police get people to confess - whether they're guilty or innocent. There isn't the printed reference that Wikipedia requires but a BBC report is more reliable in my eyes than a lot of "printed" sources.

However, it's unfair to single out Japan. Several countries have conviction rates of over 99%. To me, such a high conviction rate is prima facie evidence of a biased justice system. Sayitclearly (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

More recent statistical data
I found more recent statistics from Ministry of Justice (Japan) about rate of cases taken to courts and other cases suspended: https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-topics/c05401/order-in-the-court-explaining-japan%E2%80%99s-99-9-conviction-rate.html

I also found stats created by Nippon.com: https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-topics/c05402/citizens-on-the-bench-assessing-japan%E2%80%99s-lay-judge-system.html?pnum=2

Inserting the info citing above articles won't be easy without cleaning up the whole article itself. --George Ho (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The huge section clearly written to advance a certain view, which has been marked as needing a rewrite for a decade
The bulk of this page's wordcount is dedicated to defending a widely-condemned system, in no small part by repeatedly knocking down straw men. It's very nice that someone did all the research to produce an essay backing up their views, but this section is not fit to be on Wikipedia and It's been marked as such since 2011 with another tag added in 2015. This is a pretty huge problem, and at this point, since it's apparent no one is willing or able to rewrite it, I believe there's a real argument to be made regarding whether it's better to retain something which is informative but also propaganda vs removing the section entirely. I mean...would this section still be up if it was five thousand words defending the legitimacy of the CCP's identical conviction rate? Probably not. Autotechnica (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Conviction rate
The first entry on this page in a previous edition was ridiculous. The explanation that the reason why the conviction rate in court in Japan is 99% is because it depends on the confessions of the criminals was ridiculous. The fact that Japanese prosecutors only prosecute cases that are likely to be convicted and not many other cases is a fundamental knowledge of the Japanese criminal justice system. Many people seem unaware that Japanese prosecutors have strong authority to decide whether to prosecute a case or not.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am of course concerned that Japanese prosecutors tend to rely on confessions for evidence of crimes. And scholars are analyzing it is increasing Japan's conviction rate. However most importantly, the biggest reason cited by scholars for Japan's 99% conviction rate is its low prosecution rate. Previous editions didn't start with that most important fact.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)