Hostage Justice in Japan
You may have heard the expression “hostage justice”. It’s often used when referring to Japanese justice and perfectly encapsulates a fundamental problem concerning the country’s police and courts.
Anyone arrested or detained in Japan on suspicion of committing a crime may find themselves subjected to hostage justice and forced to confess to a crime they didn’t commit.
Like a kidnap victim held to ransom until the kidnappers’ demands are met, a victim of hostage justice is held hostage until the demands of the police are met.
For an uncooperative suspect who stays silent or continues protesting their innocence, the police sweet-talk them by telling them, “If you confess, we’ll let you go.”
Under the Japanese Constitution, it’s unlawful to physically restrain someone without just cause. Even if there is a possibility of sentencing or court proceedings being impeded, there is no reason to physically restrain a suspect if appropriate bail conditions have been set.
Let’s consider Articles 31 and 34 of the Japanese Constitution.
Article 31: No person shall be deprived of life or liberty, nor shall any other criminal penalty be imposed, except according to procedure established by law.
Article 34: No person shall be arrested or detained without being at once informed of the charges against him or without the immediate privilege of counsel; nor shall he be detained without adequate cause; and upon demand of any person such cause must be immediately shown in open court in his presence and the presence of his counsel.
In the eyes of those upholding the hostage justice system, the Constitution of Japan is a mere formality.
The Japanese Justice System Revealed to the World
After their arrest, a suspect can be detained for 23 days, which is an excessive length of time for someone to be held in custody. During this period, the police and prosecutors deliberately deprive the suspect of their freedom in order to disconcert and intimidate them.
In this way, the suspect’s mental composure becomes inexorably undermined. It’s an insidious process.
The 23-day detention period is made possible because judges tend to issue arrest or detention warrants regardless of whether such action is justified, representing an unwarranted encroachment on the prosecutorial process by the courts.
Carlos Ghosn, the former President of Nissan Motor Co., revealed to the world how the Japanese hostage justice system violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Overseas media have criticized the Japanese government for sanctioning the holding of suspects in custody without a valid reason, particularly when the suspects have asserted their innocence.
What the Japanese police and courts are doing is not only unreasonable but also nonsensical. The court simply refuses to release suspects, repeatedly stating that there is a risk of flight or destruction of evidence while continuing to issue arrest and detention warrants.
All suspects should be presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law.
Hostage justice has produced numerous false convictions, a typical example being the Ashikaga murder case in Tochigi Prefecture. A series of brutal murders of young girls in the area around Ashikaga City had remained unsolved for a considerable time.
One day, a man who was a kindergarten bus driver was arrested unexpectedly on suspicion of murder. His mother and father, with whom he lived, subsequently died prematurely because of the stress brought about by their son’s arrest.
The man was brutally interrogated by the police but continued to vehemently deny their allegations in order not to be falsely charged with a crime. The police persistently refused to believe the man’s answers, and he was mentally unable to endure the merciless questioning.
When he could take no more, he was forced to confess to a crime he had not committed. The man, believing in the judge’s fairness, summoned up the courage to again declare his innocence during the trial by exclaiming, “I didn’t do it!”
His life sentence was later confirmed by the Supreme Court, however, and he was imprisoned. The man was later acquitted on appeal. Finally, 18 years after his arrest, the man’s innocence was confirmed.
Since the real perpetrator has yet to be found, the Ashikaga murder case remains unsolved.
Inside the Interrogation Room
What actually goes on in an interrogation room? Although paragraph 1 of Article 38 of the Constitution guarantees the right to remain silent, investigations that ride roughshod over this right continue to be carried out with impunity.
It’s fair to say that the rule of law In Japan is merely a figment of the imagination. In fact, the right to remain silent is non-existent here.
Even if you do attempt to exercise your right to remain silent, interrogation will continue relentlessly because the police and prosecutors want only to obtain a written confession.
The Constitution guarantees that no one can be found guilty of a crime solely on the basis of a written confession. In spite of this guarantee, a confession of “I did it” will be treated as decisive evidence, and a judge will find the suspect guilty.
This outcome has led to countless false convictions. The suspect might be able to endure such intensive interrogation for two or three days, but if it continues for a week, they’re likely to capitulate to the police in order to end the ordeal.
If a suspect continues to exercise their right to remain silent, the interrogation could be considered as requiring additional time to complete, which is often used to justify requesting an extension of the period of detention.
Telling the suspect, “We’ll keep you here for another ten days because of your refusal to speak,” is unconstitutional. In such cases, the police and prosecutors argue that because they have made no progress with the interrogation, detention should naturally be extended.
Taking advantage of the full 23 days, the police and prosecutors are able to extract a confession slowly but surely. Exercising the right to remain silent only extends the ordeal, and so the suspect naturally feels intimidated.
Another tactic of the police and prosecutors is to use the media to publicise similar incidents that have occurred in the same area, despite the lack of a confession.
News reports imply that the suspect was responsible. This is designed to get public opinion on the side of the police and prosecutors and to enhance public perception of them.
Detention then continues until a confession that agrees with the news reports is obtained. There are cases where bail is not granted at all, detention being repeatedly extended over a period that can last from several months to almost a year.
To this day, the authorities continue to commit gross human rights violations behind closed doors against anyone suspected of a crime.
The defence counsel is barred from entering the interrogation room, and so the suspect remains isolated. This makes it easy for the police and prosecutors to always remain in control, to interrogate the suspect as they please, and to extract confessions under duress.
For serious crimes involving lay judge trials, the entire interrogation may be recorded. In such cases, one can assume that there will be fewer unethical interrogations than in the past.
For other relatively minor offences, however, the police and prosecutors continue to coerce suspects into making false confessions.
In contrast, suspects in the United States are informed at the time of their arrest that they can require an attorney to be present when they are interrogated. That right will subsequently be respected.
In principle, in Japan a suspect can likewise request that a lawyer be present during an interrogation. In reality, however, this rarely happens because the decision as to whether or not to allow it rests with the police and prosecutors.
Neither the police nor the prosecutors are held accountable for the excessive detention of suspects since it was the court that approved the detention. To make matters worse, whether a detention warrant is issued or not is left to the discretion of each judge.
Conclusion
Since the end of World War II, Japan’s police, prosecutors, and courts have made little progress in modernising their interrogation methods and systems.
Grossly improper investigations have continued to be conducted by unethical police forces from the 1870s right up to the present. We must expedite reforms in the judicial system now.
Unless this situation improves, it will be only a matter of time before public trust in justice becomes lost completely.
