My point in the main flaw of the intersection of culture and law was that the typical notion of “justice” in Japan punishes the guilty, but usually never really addresses protecting the innocent. This has been true whether the defendant’s a Japanese citizen or a foreigner, and frankly I think it’s only half of what justice is. Hatoyama further complicates matters by conflating the guilty and the accused.

I know there are pros and cons for the capital punishment. Even in Europe not all the people are against it.In fact Britain had abolished capital punishment when a majority of the population supported it and refused to reinsititute it in the 1970′s when 80 % of the population supported it.(page 159 “Law, Pragmatism,and Democracy Richard A Posner) Does it have something to do with European civilization?
It rather has something to do with whether it has preventive effect to our society and whether retributive justice is really just, doesn’t it? (For my part I am inclined to go against it because , as someone said, there is a possiblity that the verdict might be wrong, but I have to delve into the pros and cons more deeply to reach the final conclusion. )

As for Hatoyama, people should have realised that he is idiot politician when he said he was a friend of a fiend of Al Kaeda, and the convictions the supreme court judged
as false was not really false. I don’t take his words seriously.

The answer, obviously, is “No, it does not.” Bringing in any comparison to other countries does not change this, it simply obscures the arguments being made.

It seems to me that since there is a system in place with judges, prosecutors, defenders, etc. that Japan is providing reasonable standards for keeping innocent people out of jail.

On the same token, I do feel it’s kind of pointless bringing up other countries simply because the quality of a country’s legal system shouldn’t be determined by the standards in other countries.

I think that Ryan is trying to argue that having a death penalty is wrong because you can’t really prove with the utmost certainty that someone is guilty, but his mistake was bringing up Japan. Uncertainty concerning the guilt of a defendant is a universally negative point related to the death penalty and not simply limited to Japan.

The point is, if you change the system to fix a problem, that change will make another problem. For example, Japan is going to introduce lay-judge system soon, but the concern is whether those citizen judges can prevent false convictions even if they do not receive extensive court training like professional judges.

You are free to criticize Japanese judicial system based on facts, but criticism without proposal for remedy is childish.

Ryan, may I ask what “the quintessential flaw in the intersection of contemporary Japanese culture and law” is?

Hatoyama is trying to streamline the punishment part, and doesn’t really care whether or not the system does a good job protecting the innocent, and this is only half of what justice is. That is the quintessential flaw in the intersection of contemporary Japanese culture and law, and this is true regardless of the race of the defendant.

Here we go. Why the hell the Japanese culture comes in your argument? Do you accept Hatoyama’s skewed theory of J culture?
It is you who bring up irrelevant factor in the argument.
If you are against the capital punishment, fine. There are a lot of Japanese who are against it. There are pros and cons and the people know that.It is just as controversial as elsewhere in the world.
Capital punishment is legal in some states of USA, and it is practiced in China.
What common factors are there in these three culture? huh?
Is that the quintessential flaw in the intersection of contemporary American culture and law????
Very few Japanese reasons since capital punishment is wrong, something is wrong with J culture, but a racist would be likely to reason that way.
To me to say “That is the quintessential flaw in the intersection of contemporary Japanese culture and law” is as odd as to say ” That is quintessential flaw in the intersection of your personality and your reasoning.

The Question is “Does Japan do enough to insure that justice is mete out by providing reasonable standards that both protect the innocent from falsely being accused and convict the guilty of the appropriate crime and mete out a reasonable punishment?”

The answer, obviously, is “No, it does not.” Bringing in any comparison to other countries does not change this, it simply obscures the arguments being made.

Hatoyama is trying to streamline the punishment part, and doesn’t really care whether or not the system does a good job protecting the innocent, and this is only half of what justice is. That is the quintessential flaw in the intersection of contemporary Japanese culture and law, and this is true regardless of the race of the defendant.

“the defendant is perfectly free to continue discriminating against other people until somebody else has the time and money to sue him again.”
And if he has lots and lots of money to throw away. If the defendant is a corporation, shareholders will sue the management and kick them out of their office if they continue discrimination after losing a case.

“if the Constitution were so powerful, how come women in Japan get paid so much less than men?”
There is a specific law in Japan that prohibits wage discrimination between sexes. Contrary to your argument, in spite of the existence of such law, there is wage difference between sexes. I know there is wage difference in the US, too, in spite of similar laws. So, what was your point?

As ponta points out, any system has its pros and cons. I am not following UE cases, but in the US, there are a lot of false convictions like this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/us/07execute.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
In these 6 months and just in North Carolina, 3 death row inmates were found not guilty after they re-opened the case years after the conviction. I do not think Japanese system is any worth than this.

Why don’t you give me a case where people are convicted without any evidence or solely on their confession?

As for Mitsubishi Fuso Truck case, the president of the company was indicted, but the court judged that he is not guilty, because he was not involved in the designing of the truck, he was not in the position to check the possible lack of strength of the mechanism of the truck which the specialist the company hired during designing stage could not find, and there actually was no so-called “cover-up”. And contrary to what you have said, he never admitted or apologized any wrongdoing.

John K, what is the next misinformation you’d like to present here?

On the other hand, other ‘developed’ countries have *laws* which are invoked when discrimination is present… the discrimination ends there and then.

Not really.
As I showed, for instance, as for housing the U.S. federal law does not prohibit discrimination based solely on a person’s citizenship status.
(J court concluded that Korean was discriminated in housing based on the constitution. And Kawasaki local law protect foreigners—-and I hope other local governments will adopt a similar law. )
Among citizens the case will be taken to government agency(either the federal department of Housing and urban development or local government), if it feels that there has been violation of the FHA, it will try to negotiate a conciliation agreement. If the negotiations are unsucessful, a hearing will be held before a judge. If the judge finds that discrimination did occur, you are order to compensate. It is really time consuming.

the discrimination ends there and then.

Not really. The landlord pay the compensation and penalty, but you cannot enforce him to rent a room, or can you? Cite a law please.

(… if the Constitution were so powerful, how come women in Japan get paid so much less than men? The Constitution says they should be treated equally.)

With a lot of special laws against discrimination how come women in the U.S, get paid less than men?
The laws says they should be treated equally, no?
And with laws against racial discrimination’s, how come African Americans remain the most residentially segregated group in the USA?
Are American laws not powerful?

I symphasize with the foreigners who have been unfairly rejected for a room, and I think there should be more laws to protect them.
But when people start citing fake cases, and fake stories and start blaming Japan out of sense of supremacy(I am not talking about you, DMC), I have no sympathy but disdain.

What I don’t like is that people sometimes attack the whole system, the whole culture, the whole country, citing a few misleading cases, a few real incidents which the Japanese also criticize while turning blind an eye to the cases in their mother countries.
What I don’t like is that some people conclude, imply, or presuppose with no substantial argument that the whole J system is inferior—personally I think it is a manifestation of their own racism—-bias mixed with a sense of superiority.

Does the jury system necessarily better? because the English speaking countries adopt it? The jury system has its own merits and demerits.
(BTW Japan used to have the jury system. it started in 1923 and was suspended in 1943—it didn’t work nicely at the time).

The U.S. has relatively low conviction rate. What does it mean? It means in a way that the police are incompetent, and you cannot trust the police entirely.
The U.S. has high rate of false convictions. What does it means? It means in a way you cannot trust the court entirely.
Does it follow that the whole system is a joke?
Does it follow that the U.S. system is worse?
Does it mean UN should condemn her for that?
Some people are mistakenly taking this kind of argument and conclude it follows, it means that. I am saying this is wrong.

Yes it did. SO??? What makes you so sure that this case was as you state “based SOLELY upon a confession and also others in the ABSENSE of any evidence.”

Article 319

Confession under compulsion, torture, threat, after unduly prolonged detention or when there is doubt about it being voluntary may not be admitted as evidence.

(2) The accused shall not be convicted when the confession, whether it was made in open court or not, is the only piece of incriminating evidence.

(… if the Constitution were so powerful, how come women in Japan get paid so much less than men? The Consitution says they should be treated equally.)

Ponta: I’m not sure what your point is, but no need to get defensive! I have the impression that the Japanese legal system has more problems than European systems, probably also more than the American system. Some of the reasons I have that impression are e.g. the following:

http://www.bfi.org.uk/whatson/lff/film_programme/world_cinema/i_just_didnt_do_it
http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=4122

The fact that a case is brought to the court does not mean the defendants are convicted, at least in Japan

I’m wondering what part of Article 319 Section 2 do they not understand?? Do they think defense lawyers are weak and timid that they don’t use this section as a defense for his/her client???

I think he might be referring to articles such as this one:
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10854797

“Since there are many cases reported in the press where convictions are based solely upon a confession and also others in the absence of any evidence. (I don’t keep a track of them, i just note them when i read them in the papers and on news websites, BBC, Ecomomist, JT etc).”

Just give me one such case, would you?

I have been closely watching Japanese courts for years, but have never heard of anything near to what you said. There are several professional magazines for lawyers that record major court judgments in Japan. As far as I searched, I could find nothing similar, either.

If you could ever “discover” one such case, your discovery would be a major headline.

I think bringing in or comparing the US legal system and stat’s muddied the waters a tad.

I think comparing the other nation’s system is crucial.
Note again it is you who have start comparing J system with western nations.
And I think it is important to bring in other nation’s system and compare them with J system based on facts, not on bias.
Often people start attacking Japanese system as if it was essentially different from their mother country and often the implication is that their system is superior. Bringing in other nation’s cases will balance their minds and cool their heads.

While john K cites article 318 in his argument, he discredits your article 317 and 319 evidence because according to his words “is never carried out to the letter of the law” based on some lame English based articles. How convenient.

However, as I noted you accept this, but question what relevance outside of a working environment antidiscrimination has…ergo you side with the “it is morally acceptable” to discriminate in all circumstance, for whatever reason, save for being at work.

Nope.
First I think Japan should have more laws against descrminations as more and more immigrants will come in Japan not because there was no law but because that will be more convenient for them.
But note law and right arises out of (the realization of) the wrongs in a specific society and in a specific traditions.. Civil right movements in the U.S. arose largely because there were institutionalized and legalized practice of discrimination’s in the U.S. And that is one reason why American people are more sensitive to racial issues.(That is a good thing.) In case of Japan, women had less rights than men, but as for the race, there was no equivalent discriminatory law against other ethnicity. During the colonial period, Koreans married with Japanese, Korean rode on the same bus, Koreans studied at the same university, Koreans could vote, Koreans could hold offices. I am not saying there was no discriminations in Japan, but the history of more harsh discriminations explain partly why more anti-discrimination law have been enacted in the west.
Second, supporting the idea that the law should not interfere with private sphere too excessively does not means anything goes morally in private sphere. For instance, I think it is morally wrong to use racial slur even in private, but I don’t support the law by which the language people use will be checked by the law.

The common fallacy of this 99.9% conviction argument is that most fail to consider other factors such as Japan’s low prosecution rate or the low # of prosecutors per capita. In other words, the cases that actually goes through the trial is a slam dunk.

You talked about the lack of Japanese law supporting the consititutions. I cited an example. You said, that was not it.(?????).
You cited the article 318 of criminal procedure.
I cited the artilce 317 and 319, and you said the law was not at stake, but but the actual pracice is.
Okay, I agree. I also argued that with laws against descrimination, still there might be harsh descriminations, citing the statistics on African-Americans in the U.S.
And now you’ve started talking about a peculiar picture of J justice system, with the help of dim memory.
I enjoy the talk, but let’s be specific, and let’s talk about one thing at one time..

The Human Rights written in the Bill of Rights chapter of Constitution worth 100 times more than rights written in a law. You are arguing to the contrary and who do you think will support you?

A lot of plaintiffs won discrimination law suites citing article 14 of Japan’s Constitution. It is by all means enforceable. Even Debito won his Otaru Onsen law suite citing article 14 of the Constitution.

Do you understand?

Your article 317 and 319 again, another example of here is a law but in practice is never carried out to the letter of the law.

Here again, you are talking out of bias.

(I don’t keep a track of them, i just note them when i read them in the papers and on news websites, BBC, Economist, JT etc).

Either you misremember or the articles are not grounded.
Just cite a few examples.

Evidence, in western courts, is not at the judges discretion. Evidence is brought forward by prosecution and defence, not by the judge.

It is so with the Japanese judicial system too.

The relevance of the evidence, ie is it factual or is it a lie etc, is down to the 12 jury members to decide independently.

And the armature juror decide the relevance on a whim?

The judge is just the “conductor” as such, to ensure the trial has been conducted within the legal frame work.

I don’t know about Britain, but in the U.S. the defendant has a choice. he can use the court without jury, can’t he?

Here the judge is basically “judge-jury-executioner” and as such has absolute power to do as he/she please with impunity

This is totally wrong.
A judge is strictly separated from a prosecutor and acts as the third party between the accused and the accuser.

I don’t know where you got idea, but let’s talk based on facts, not on bias.

I am responding your claim that

Whereas Asian cultures are based around non-confrontation/interference and harmony. The two are anathema to each other.

This is noted when judges in japan say the primary purpose of a trial is to correct behaviour, not to punish it

Here you are saying that judges in Japan consider the primary purpose of a trail is to correct behavior. But that is not accurate.
The primary purpose of a trial is to punish a criminal and in sentencing, the consideration for the rehabilitation comes is.

“..What do you expect a anti-discrimination law to do in the sphere of private activity？
This then means to me that your view is anything other than employment (as you cited laws above with regards to employment only) is considered to be “morally acceptable”.

Here your interpretation is a bit skewed.

OK. Then, what is a fashionable substitute for civilization when a person wants to talk about a society 10,000 yeras ago?

This is noted when judges in japan say the primary purpose of a trial is to correct behaviour, not to punish it.

Criminal system is mainly about crime and punishment in Japan too.

“..What do you expect a anti-discrimination law to do in the sphere of private activity？..”

This then means to me that your view is anything other than employment (as you cited laws above with regards to employment only) is considered to be “morally acceptable”.

Sorry you can’t take that way.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/210907_b_brutality.htm
http://www.innocenceproject.org/

And Hatoyama seems insane, although I it might of course be a translation issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system_of_Japan#Conviction_rate

if you take someone life, they will take yours.
life is so important that you’ll be forgive about anything if you do seppuku.

[用法]文化・文明―― 「文化」は民族や社会の風習・伝統・思考方法・価値観などの総称で、世代を通じて伝承されていくものを意味する。◇「文明」は人間の知恵が進み、技術が進歩して、生活が便利に快適になる面に重点がある。◇「文化」と「文明」の使い分けは、「文化」が各時代にわたって広範囲で、精神的所産を重視しているのに対し、「文明」は時代・地域とも限定され、経済・技術の進歩に重きを置くというのが一応の目安である。「中国文化」というと古代から現代までだが、「黄河文明」というと古代に黄河流域に発達した文化に限られる。「西洋文化」は古代から現代にいたるヨーロッパ文化をいうが、「西洋文明」は特に西洋近代の機械文明に限っていうことがある。◇「文化」のほうが広く使われ、「文化住宅」「文化生活」「文化包丁」などでは便利・新式の意となる。
http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E6%96%87%E6%98%8E&dtype=0&stype=0&dname=0na&ref=1&index=17160716418900

Roughly bunmei is used for advanced technology in a specific region/times while bunka has a broader sense and emphasize spiritual, epistemological aspects.

”what does it say about cases being tried with or without evidence for a conviction??…”

You can not convict someone without evidence(Code of Criminal Procedure article 317)
You can not convict someone with only confession(Code of Criminal Procedure article 319)

Code of Criminal Procedure article 318 says the value of the evidence is at the judges discretion.

That is how it works in modern judicial system,isn’t it? In other countries, it is sometimes amature juror’s discretion, But either way, you not determine the value of the evidence on a whim.

Mr Hatoyama calls it “an idea which I want to constrain”..when asked about being innocent until proven guilty.

Forget about Hatoyama,　his brain needs to be examined. He is after all a friend of a friend of
Al Qaeda

Incredible!

(1) That the Constitution and laws of the United States contain extensive protections of individual freedom of speech, expression and association. Accordingly, the United States does not accept any obligation under this Convention, in particular under Articles 4 and 7, to restrict those rights, through the adoption of legislation or any other measures, to the extent that they are protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

(2) That the Constitution and the laws of the United States establish extensive protections against discrimination, reaching significant areas of non-governmental activity. Individual privacy and freedom from governmental interference in private conduct, however, are also recognized as among the fundamental values which shape our free and democratic society. The United States understands that the identification of the rights protected under the Convention by reference in Article 1 to the fields of “public life” reflects a similar distinction between spheres of public conduct that are customarily the subject of governmental regulation, and spheres of private conduct that are not. To the extent, however, that the Convention calls for a broader regulation of private conduct, the United States does not accept any obligation under this Convention to enact legislation or take other measures under paragraph (1) of Article 2, subparagraphs (1)(c) and (d) of Article 2, Article 3 and Article 5 with respect to private conduct except as mandated by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/usdocs/racialres.html

PUBLIC ACCOMODATION

(e) Private establishments
The provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public（§ 2000a. Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation）

As a reference,
As for the HOUSING

The Act does not prohibit discrimination based solely on a person’s citizenship status.
http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/library/sept11.cfm

As for the EMPLOYMENT

Title VII does not prohibit citizenship discrimination per se

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/national-origin.html#VI

By the way the article 14 of Japanese constitution works at the court.
Actually Debito won his case based on the article 14 of the constitution and the article 1, 90, 710 of the civil code .(Read the court text on his web)
Zainichi Korean won her case ,also based on the constitution, where she claimed she was discriminated in housing,

The income gap between minority groups such as Zainichi Koreans(non-citizen) and the majority group is not so high in Japan
http://db.jil.go.jp/cgi-bin/jsk012?smode=dtldsp&detail=F2000040106&displayflg=1
“In the USA, in 2001, the real median income black families was only 62% of that that of whites, a figure that drops to 58% if Hispanics are excluded.”(“Racism” Ali Rattansi page141)

With the laws against discriminations, there may still be harsh discrimination;without such laws, there may be less harsh discriminations.

This is different from the Japanese word bunmei, which as far as I know is a Meiji period neologism, or at least was used in its current meaning then. It is more “culture” than the English “civilisation,” though not the same as “bunka.” “Jomon bunka” is a standard term, for example – it is rarer to refer to it as “Jomon bunmei.” It smacks of trying to boost it to the levels of, say, the four original “bunmei” in most textbooks.