British man arrested for causing newborn baby’s death

*sigh* Seems like the kid decided to waltz into Japan, marry the poor girl without actually being ready for it (language issues aside).
Just glad to hear it wasn’t an ALT/English teacher because I prefer to believe those types actually go to Japan with some inkling of what they’re getting into.

I feel so sorry for the baby and the baby’s mother, but I can’t help feeling sorry for the father too. Sure, he had no right to be a father. He probably couldn’t look after a kitten, let alone a baby. But taking care of a small baby can be terrifically stressful, and even good parents can be tempted to shake their babies when they won’t stop crying. A 19-year-old, out of his own country, stuck in (I’m guessing) a small apartment with a newborn baby — this is a recipe for disaster.

Death penalty is a ridiculous way to punish people, people who feel guilt and despair kill themselves everyday why should we relieive anyone from lifeand jail?..

He was a really young father (dekichatta kekkon?) and I will not find a excuse but the shaked baby syndrom is not that rare and it can touched anybody. Usually of course the damages are not too bad. My mother used to work in a hospital and had thousand of story of this type. One father came home and the baby would not stop crying he threw it by the window. I do not think it is a murder case, but an awfully sad story. I feel sorry for the woman who lost her baby .

Constitution
Article 38 section 3
No person shall be convicted or punished in cases where the only proof against him is his own confession.

code of criminal procedure article 319 section 2 states

刑事訴訟法第319条2項が「被告人は、公判廷における自白であると否とを問わず、その自白が自己に不利益な唯一の証拠である場合には、有罪とされない。」
quick translation.
The accused cannot be convicted in case where the only evidence against him is his own confession whether it is made at the court or outside the court.

Does that answer your question?

I think the issue here is between the strict letter of the law, and the reality. While ponta may be right in saying that a confession alone is not technically enough, I wonder how often that actually applies….

While ponta may be right in saying that a confession alone is not technically enough, I wonder how often that actually applies….

I wonder　how often that actually does not apply despite the law and how many cases people discussing it know such cases.

A rough straw pole indicates around 30% of cases have a conviction based solely upon a confession and nowt else.

I am surprised. And no lawyer appeal to the court claiming that the cases are violating the constitution?????
Could you please find the paper indicating it.　Mental note is often dubious and often filled with prejudice.
BTW Have you checked 自白の補強法則?

Whereas when a person confesses, there is a 97% rate (if i recall) of having “negotiated” a lower sentence

I know the rate of confession.
http://www.courts.go.jp/sihotokei/nenpo/pdf/B18DKEI25.pdf
It is not unreasonable for people to confess, or to plead guilty when they know that that makes sentence lower and trial time shorter.
But I didn’t know that 97% among them negotiated a lower sentence.
Again could you quote the source?

What words are these, to which you refer?

Of course　this one.

not one single person in Japan has ever been sent to prison or hanged based solely upon a confession

you must remember that the judge has the final say on what is or is not accepted as ‘evidence’

That’s true.

So when a “confession” is obtained, any other evidence can be ignored.

This is where you go wrong. The judge is bound by the law. Is that not so in your country?

i’d rather enjoy my life than concern myself and fill my hard drive or spare room with data that I may use on some obscure blog just to satisfy one persons point of view!

That is okay as long as you keep it yourself, but when you state it on a public forum, you need to back it up.

As for
“..not one single person in Japan has ever been sent to prison or hanged based solely upon a confession..”
still don’t follow how this is “putting words into your mouth”?

Okay, let me put this way. how does my comment implicate what you said my comment implicated.

Your assertion is that 319sec2 prevents this from happening…ergo this clearly never happens! How is that putting words into your mouth…I’m just pointing out where the logic in your argument goes…

Okay, here is where your logic fails.
The punishment of the murder by law, for one thing, is supposed to prevent murders,and it does prevent murders for the most part but it follow neither there is no murder nor that there are plenty of murders.The same logic applies to my comment.

As side note, I regret to say that stereo’s comment makes sense while your comment to stereo does not, I suggest to counter-argue point by point;that will make you look better.