Language
Country/Area
No result found
Behind the 99% conviction rate: The shocking truth about Japan's criminal justice system!
In Japan's criminal justice system, there are three basic characteristics that form the key to its operation. First, there is a close collaborative relationship between law enforcement agencies (including the police, prosecutors, courts and correctional services), with frequent consultations on how best to achieve shared objectives of limiting and controlling crime. Second, citizens are encouraged to help maintain public order and participate extensively in crime prevention campaigns, arrests of suspects, and rehabilitation programs for offenders. Finally, law enforcement officials have considerable discretion when dealing with criminal suspects.
According to Japanese police data, the police recorded 568,104 crimes in 2021, of which 8,821 were classified as major crimes (such as murder, robbery, etc.). The arrest rate for these major crimes is as high as 93.4%. Data show that Japan’s conviction rate has exceeded 99.8%, a figure that even exceeds some of today’s authoritarian regimes.
Scholars have pointed out that Japan's high conviction rate mainly stems from its low prosecution rate and the difference in the way conviction rates are calculated from other countries. In Japan, prosecutors only prosecute cases where there is a reasonable chance of obtaining a conviction, resulting in a relatively small number of cases that are actually prosecuted.
Japanese prosecutors delay prosecution in 60% of cases, and approximately 30% of cases are concluded through summary trials. This summary trial is conducted without a formal trial after the prosecutor submits documents. Under this system, only 8% of cases are actually prosecuted by prosecutors.
According to the analysis of scholars, this behavior of prosecutors is based on excessive fear of the risk of losing the case, because failure will damage their reputation. Prosecution and conviction rates have fallen since the jury system was introduced in 2009.
History
Japan's criminal justice system has undergone significant changes, especially since the Meiji Restoration in 1868. Until the Meiji Restoration, Japan's judiciary was primarily under the direct control of the daimyo, relying on moral norms rather than law. After 1868, the first legal codes promulgated, such as the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1880, were modeled after French law and marked the beginning of treating all citizens as equals and establishing a centralized administration of criminal justice.
Criminal Procedure
When police arrest a suspect, the case is forwarded to prosecutors. Under the law, prosecutors have unique powers to decide whether to prosecute a case. According to Article 248 of Japan’s Criminal Procedure Code, prosecutors may decide not to prosecute when considering the type of crime and the defendant’s situation.
In addition to the discretion of prosecutors, the police also have broad discretion regarding juvenile crimes and can send suspected juveniles to juvenile courts for counseling.
The role of citizens
Japan’s police system encourages citizens to participate in the enforcement of the law, and in the process of arrests and prosecutions, citizen participation is regarded as part of maintaining social order. This emphasis on community participation introduces a consensus of moral responsibility while maintaining public safety.
However, Japan's justice system has long been criticized, including questions about lengthy detentions and a lack of legal counsel. Some scholars refer to this as "hostage justice," which refers to the use of prolonged detention and forced questioning to enhance the prosecution's chances of success.
Some people criticize this practice as inconsistent with human rights standards and believe that it can lead to false confessions and unjust imprisonment.
Conclusion
The characteristics of Japan's criminal justice system result in its overwhelming conviction rate, but there are also many unknown problems hidden behind it. As society pays increasing attention to justice and human rights, will this model be re-evaluated and changed?
