Abusing the Right to Arrest Citizens
The police tactfully choose whether to arrest and what to announce. Given the same offence and circumstances, the person may or may not be arrested, and their real names may or may not be revealed.
An arrest is a procedure that detains a person suspected of a crime. It’s a means to force an investigation that, on occasion, infringes on the basic human right to act freely. Usually, the police are required to obtain an arrest warrant from a judge before making an arrest.
Police officers aren’t the only ones who can arrest people. Prosecutors, the Self-Defence Forces, and the Coast Guard can make arrests. Drug enforcement officers and labour standards inspectors of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare can also arrest people.
Abusing the Right to Arrest
Article 199 and subsequent clauses of Japan’s Code of Criminal Procedure stipulate cases in which police officers are allowed to make arrests.
Furthermore, Article 143–3 of Japan’s Rules of Criminal Procedure states: When a judge finds that there is clearly no need for an arrest due to there being no risk of the suspect fleeing or destroying evidence of crime, the judge must dismiss the request for an arrest warrant.
In other words, a suspect can be arrested and detained only if there is a clear concern that they may escape or destroy evidence. Put another way, if a suspect doesn’t attempt to flee, hide, or deceive, they don’t need to be arrested.
Many police officers, however, want to make an arrest as soon as they confirm that the person has committed a crime. Any suspect should be presumed innocent, even if they’re suspected of committing a crime.
To illustrate this, if a house is searched and a family member signs a letter that guarantees they will supervise the suspect, there would be no reason to hide evidence or to try and escape.
It’s the court’s role to examine evidence and determine if the suspect is the offender. Punishment is decided by a judge after months or even years of hearings. Arresting and securing a suspect should be the police’s last resort, though.
If the police request someone come in for voluntary questioning, that person will likely come in, and there won’t be evidence to destroy as the residence will have already been checked by the police. The police are well aware of this.
The police, however, will arrest the person they’re after by any means necessary after colluding with the media. If the public prosecutor’s office or a police official abuses their authority and arrests or confines a person, they could be guilty of the crime of abuse of authority by a special public official and sentenced to up to 10 years in prison.
After an arrest, a suspect can be detained for up to three days. If prosecutors want to keep the suspect in custody longer, a detention warrant from a judge is needed. Like an arrest warrant, a detention warrant is almost always issued automatically when requested by the prosecution. Judges don’t stop police or prosecutors from abusing the power to arrest.
Those who Have Their Names Reported and Those who Don’t
Once an arrested person’s real name is reported, they will likely suffer irreparable damage. For example:
Loss of reputation or credibility
Negative effect on credit rating
Lifetime earnings losses (from tens to hundreds of millions of yen)
Overdue loan repayments and mortgages carry the risk of foreclosure
Transition from a welfare pension to a state pension. Decrease in retirement pension
Deterioration in relative relations
Divorce
Health maintenance difficulties
Extreme mental distress and associated illnesses
What’s more is that family members are treated as accomplices and similarly persecuted, which has a major impact on them.
The suspect’s life is ruined when their real name is publicly revealed in a police arrest. This happens even if a person is arrested for a crime that they didn’t commit.
Because the police understand the horrors of how a person might be treated if arrested, they don’t arrest their own, even if they’re suspected of breaking the law.
Such matters are handled in an arbitrary manner among themselves (in other words, virtually no punishment) and kept from the media. Even if a police officer commits a hit and run, it will be hidden from the public.
In other words, the police are willing to put citizens at risk, while knowing the backlash associated with arrests. So who are the police protecting?
When the police arrest someone, they contact a family member to inform them of the arrested person and detail the charges. If the media reports the suspect’s real name, however, the police will not inform the family. If you turn on the TV, you’ll see!
In EU countries, unless the person is in public office or a religious figure, their real name will likely not be reported, even if the person is a suspect. Broadly speaking, in the EU, a citizen’s real name could be reported in two types of cases.
One is sexual abuse of a minor by a teacher abusing their position or by a teacher possessing child pornography. The prison sentence for such crimes might be up to 50 years. And because of the punishment’s severity, the offender’s name and photograph will be widely publicised.
And the other is murder cases. Many murder suspects, however, are reported without stating the person’s name. People who illegally possess large amounts of cannabis are similarly treated anonymously in the EU.
Crime suspects have the right to privacy in the EU. The media and the general public understand this. Scenes of a crowd angry at a police vehicle transporting a random street killer hidden from view are sometimes broadcast.
Such an expression of feelings directly to the person in question falls under freedom of speech. An act of secretly revealing a suspect’s personal information or violating their right to refuse being photographed does not. This is so in Europe, where human rights are properly protected.
Aside from overlooking crimes by their own, the police in Japan often overlook cases in which an arrest should be made.
Examples include people who have received some kind of medal or award from the government and other such people of high social standing. Such people have the luxury of special measures.
These involve either sending papers to prosecutors without any arrest taking place or, if there is an arrest, reporting the matter without giving any names.
Another case involves an employee at Japan’s largest advertising company, Dentsu. He was suspected of molestation on a train while employed at the company but his name wasn’t revealed. Dentsu is closely related to Japan’s political and financial elite.
Dentsu is well connected. If they get into hot water, they have important people they can call on to help.
In March 2020, a Tokai Television employee in central Japan was arrested on suspicion of violating Japan’s Anti-Stalking Act. About the incident not being reported on TV, Tokai Television said that it concerns employee privacy, so it cannot speak to whether it’s true or false or answer other questions.
There is a case of an educator who committed fraud at the campus he worked on but only the school’s name was reported and he remained anonymous.
Even if an educator commits fraud at work or in their private life, they remain anonymous if they work at a public (i.e., state) school, and the school name is often not revealed.
Privilege of Immunity from Arrest
Next, let’s look at Kozo Iizuka, a privileged person who wasn’t arrested despite being involved in reckless driving that killed a mother and her daughter in April 2019. He got special treatment and escaped arrest. Let’s look at why.
According to Mejiro police station, all evidence was seized in the investigation, so it won’t be destroyed. When they told Kozo Iizuka to come to Mejiro Police Station after he was discharged from hospital, he came.
They didn’t arrest him because they weren’t worried about him escaping. Looking at this judgment in isolation, it’s rational. It meets the arrest requirements explained earlier.
In most cases, however, suspects are arrested despite there being no risk of escape or destruction of evidence. Even if the suspect were to ask to be voluntarily investigated by the police, the police would likely make excuses and dodge the issue.
While rejecting the suspect’s requests, the police hand over their personal information to the media and plan the arrest date and time. They tell the media to have a camera crew ready at the police station at a given date and time.
There are cases of a suspect who’s been waiting for weeks or months for a call from the police is suddenly arrested. And there are cases of, after being told that a voluntary hearing will take place, they are arrested upon arrival at the police station. Suspects may also be arrested at their workplaces.
The public were critical about the reckless driving incident in Ikebukuro (Tokyo) caused by the privileged person, asking why the police didn’t arrest the person. Legal principles, however, say that Kozo Iizuka should be presumed innocent even though he’s suspected of killing the mother and daughter, so the police cannot punish him.
Arrest should be a last resort to prevent the suspect from fleeing or destroying evidence, such that investigations aren’t hindered. This, however, misunderstands criminal procedure.
Kozo Iizuka’s trial resulted in a five-year prison sentence. Considering Kozo was 87 at the time of the accident, his five-year sentence feels more severe than if it has been given to a younger senior citizen.
This result, however, is merely a grudging acquiescence to the public’s indignation that the police didn’t originally arrest a privileged person. And since Kozo’s home was guarded by police, it’s natural for the public to lose patience since they foot that bill through taxes.
Conclusion
Thus, in Japan, police powers of office and powers of arrest are conveniently used for them. Again, an arrest is a last resort to prevent suspects from fleeing an investigation. No one should have the authority to casually arrest someone and thereby destroy their life.
