Man arrested over sexual assault of woman in alley

Police said Wada has admitted to the charge and quoted him as saying he was irritated after having an argument with a female colleague at work that day, and that he did not know his victim.

There will never be a justification that's good enough to justify crimes like these. If he's that stressed at work, why don't he just hit the local red light district or chat it up with a friend? But the mere fact that it made the news means this guy is behind bars, let's hope he stays there for a while.

He had a fight with a female co-worker, so decided to take out his anger on the entire female gender by raping a woman he didn't know.

There is no denying the existence of misogyny.

Mr. Wada?

Yes?

Um.., the nursery school principal would like to see you in her office.

Gee, whatever for?

Oh, and she has a note from your parents; they said don't bother coming home again.

Police said the woman suffered injuries that took about a week to heal.

Wada was arrested after an an analysis of street surveillance camera footage. Police said Wada has admitted to the charge and quoted him as saying he was irritated after having an argument with a female colleague at work that day, and that he did not know his victim.

Entitled, misogynist men using their anger as a weapon against women. And any will do, it appears.

Awful.

Sadly, the Japanese criminal system will not come close to seriously punishing this heinous act of violence. Being stressed, angry, or drunk are somehow mitigating factors. Ridiculous.

P. SmithToday  09:51 am JST

I would like to point out that we don’t know whether the suspect raped the victim because it isn’t explicitly stated in the article. That could be due to lack of information for the reporter or simply poor writing by the writer.

Or, it could be that the woman was sexually assaulted as per the article but not actually raped.

girl_in_tokyoToday  08:59 am JST

He had a fight with a female co-worker, so decided to take out his anger on the entire female gender by raping a woman he didn't know.

Why have you elevated the charge from sexual assault to rape? Do you know of another news source?

Why have you elevated the charge from sexual assault to rape? Do you know of another news source?

They used the Japanese女性に性的暴行. Molestation, indecent exposure, etc. are normally written as 強制わいせつ

Regardless arguing semantics is a pretty low in this situation.

@Kiwikid

Why "regardless"? there should be regard concerning this matter!

The misogyny is strong in this one. Also shows that criminal record checks and a sex offenders register is essential to help prevent offenders getting near children and vulnerable adults. Most nonces choose to be in areas or jobs where they have better access to the vulnerable.

Rape is one form of sexual assault. The woman may have asked for details not to be released.

When the press report says a victim was "...found safe and unharmed...", that doesn't mean they weren't raped either; it just means they are back with their loved ones and the injuries are not visible.

P. SmithToday 09:51 am JST

I would like to point out that we don’t know whether the suspect raped the victim because it isn’t explicitly stated in the article. That could be due to lack of information for the reporter or simply poor writing by the writer.

I would like to point out that there is video evidence, eye witness evidence, and that the suspect confessed.

I'm pretty sure that three types of evidence make it safe for us to assume guilt.

Harry_GattoToday 12:02 pm JST

Why have you elevated the charge from sexual assault to rape? Do you know of another news source?

Because if he had only groped her, the article would have said that.

The reason I changed it from 'sexual assault' to 'rape' is because using 'sexual assault' allows the action to be downplayed, as in, "it was ONLY sexual assault." It allows people to think what happened to her was not so bad.

That is obviously a problem. This man grabbed a woman off the street, threatened her life, then forced her into an ally to rape her. That is nothing short of horrifying, and should not be downplayed just because the Japanese media doesn't have the cojones to use the more accurate if very shocking term '強姦' or even 'レイプ.'

The word needs to be said out loud and clear:

RAPE is common in Japan and men who RAPE women rarely get prosecuted. I hope they lock up this RAPIST for RAPING this woman, and I hope they throw away the key.

P. Smith

Rape and “flashing,” however, are not of equal harm.

Flashing seldom, if ever, causes injuries that take weeks to heal.

@girl_in_tokyo

You want to change the definition of rape so that sexual assault and rape become the same thing?.

So how do we differentiate the crime of fondeling a woman's breasts over her bra and the crime of holding a woman down, forcing intercourse on her potentially giving her life threatening Sti's and or a pregnancy? And causing her internal physical harm.

Hmm, your ideas are novel if a little naive, there is good reason we have separate definitions for things.

Fuchu is a very peaceful place, except around the boat-racing and horse-racing facilities, which should be avoided in the evenings after races (due to large numbers of drunk and angry men who've lost way too much money.) Especially on Saturday nights, as January 16th was. Having seen these kind of creeps there late at night, I wonder at the truthfulness of Mr. Wada's excuse.

It is my hope that the streets will be safe again after this perpetrator's apprehension, and that the police examine whether there are any other similar reports in the area over the last few years. I am strongly convinced this wasn't Mr. Wada's first attempt at this kind of crime.

f Wada did in fact "rape" the women he doesn't have far to go. If I can recall that is the same city where Fuchu men's prison is located!

TokyoJoeFeb. 22 07:52 pm JST

You want to change the definition of rape so that sexual assault and rape become the same thing?.

Rape is a form of sexual assault. In linguistic terms, sexual assault is the hypernym, and rape is the hyponym.

So how do we differentiate the crime of fondeling a woman's breasts over her bra and the crime of holding a woman down, forcing intercourse on her potentially giving her life threatening Sti's and or a pregnancy? And causing her internal physical harm.

We already have terms for that, which I have used here correctly, so I don't understand your question.

Hmm, your ideas are novel if a little naive, there is good reason we have separate definitions for things.

I find it quite funny that you're calling me "naive". That's a new one.

P. Smith Feb. 22 06:42 pm JST

There was no video evidence of the actual assault, just the dude grabbing the victim. The only eyewitness is the victim. Police here force confessions.

If you can make a contention without any evidence whatsoever that in this case it is likely that "the police forced a confession" then you won't find anything wrong with me making a similar statement, such as "women don't lie about rape."

And I think everyone here will agree that my contention is far more likely to be true than yours, since false rape accusations are extremely rare, there is video evidence of her being forced, and she had injuries.

Unless you are next going to say that she and the police conspired to fake her injuries? eyebrows raised

I must say that find it very strange that you would go so far as to make contentions of police brutality to attempt to exculpate a complete stranger, when rape is an extremely common crime and there is plenty of evidence for the crime being exactly what it is being reported as. I'm sure you are familiar with Occam's razor? In other words, you are adding elements here for which there is no evidence nor reason to believe, making the case far more complicated than it actually is.

Feel free to assume all you want, but guilt is not determined until it is adjudicated.

I'm not a law enforcement agent, lawyer, or judge so adjudicating is not my purview. Therefore I can say as a person with the ability to think and reason critically based on evidence, that it is highly likely that this guy is guilty of rape.

I think that we all should sit back and contemplate the conversations that are happening around this article.

We have just learned that even when there is plenty of physical evidence, video evidence of force, and a confession, some men will go so far as to allege a police conspiracy to try to exculpate one of their fellow men for rape.

Even though the accused is a complete stranger, and there is no evidence of a police conspiracy, some men would rather allege that the police beat a confession out of the suspect rather than acknowledge that a rape likely occurred.

notallmen and all that, but JFC men can be terrible human beings.

There was no video evidence of the actual assault, just the dude grabbing the victim. The only eyewitness is the victim. Police here force confessions.

If you can make a contention without any evidence whatsoever that in this case it is likely that "the police forced a confession"

Why are you misrepresenting what he said? You put in quotes that he said "the police forced a confession", when the actual words he used were "police here force confessions". You changed his observation of something that can be objectively verified as happening in Japan, to an observation that that is happened in this case. They are not equivalent. The way you phrased it would mean the poster was saying the accused is innocent. The way he phrased it was that the man has not yet been found guilty, and it's not fair to convict him as such in the court of public opinion.

then you won't find anything wrong with me making a similar statement, such as "women don't lie about rape."

I personally have a problem with that, as it can be objectively shown that sometimes some women do lie about rape. It's rare, and by far not the norm, nevertheless the blanket statement is incorrect.

Even though the accused is a complete stranger, and there is no evidence of a police conspiracy, some men would rather allege that the police beat a confession out of the suspect rather than acknowledge that a rape likely occurred.

No one has alleged that. You've twisted their actual comments to fit your agenda of guilty until proven innocent.

My personal opinion from the available evidence is that this guy likely raped the victim, but that doesn’t necessitate that he did.

I agree. Which is exactly why suspects should be given the presumption of innocence by the media and government, as just the suggestion alone is enough to taint someone's image. When the person is actually guilty, who cares right. But on those rare occasions where it's an mistaken or false accusation, the affront to the falsely accused innocent person is as much an affront as actual rapes themselves. That's why, even though emotionally I feel this guy is probably guilty, I try to remain objective and at least logically try to give him the benefit of the doubt until he has had a trial.

StrangerlandToday 08:46 am JST

Why are you misrepresenting what he said? You put in quotes that he said "the police forced a confession", when the actual words he used were "police here force confessions".

He is applying the concept that "police force confessions" to this situation; in other words, he is contending that it is possible in this case that the police forced a confession. So all I did was repeat his words back to him in context of this situation - I didn't in fact "change his words". He is, in fact, applying a blanket statement to this situation.

I personally have a problem with that, as it can be objectively shown that sometimes some women do lie about rape. It's rare, and by far not the norm, nevertheless the blanket statement is incorrect.

Exactly - blanket statements should not be thrown out willy-nilly just to make a point. You need to show why a statement applies in a particular case.

I.e., he should not have suggested that "the police force confession" in this instance because there is no reason to think that they did in this case.

P. SmithToday 09:00 am JST

This is a gross misrepresentation of my stance. My personal opinion from the available evidence is that this guy likely raped the victim, but that doesn’t necessitate that he did.

You said "the police force confessions" in context to this case; yet now you are upset that I took you at your word that you believe the police in this case forced a confession.

Welcome to the real world, where people will take you at your word. Maybe you should be more careful in throwing about blanket statements in the future.

StrangerlandToday 09:09 am JST

I agree. Which is exactly why suspects should be given the presumption of innocence by the media and government, as just the suggestion alone is enough to taint someone's image. When the person is actually guilty, who cares right. But on those rare occasions where it's an mistaken or false accusation, the affront to the falsely accused innocent person is as much an affront as actual rapes themselves. That's why, even though emotionally I feel this guy is probably guilty, I try to remain objective and at least logically try to give him the benefit of the doubt until he has had a trial.

We have argued this point on a number of occsaions, and frankly, I can't be bothered to go into it in depth again.

Suffice it to say that people make personal judgements all the time, and we are under no obligation to withhold making any kind of judgement until after a case has gone to court - particularly in regard to the use of media to inform ourselves of the prevalence of crime.

In other words, women reading this have every right to assume that a rape took place, and to make the personal judgement that they should be concerned over their general safety while out walking at night.

He is applying the concept that "police force confessions" to this situation; in other words, he is contending that it is possible in this case that the police forced a confession.

It is possible. We don't know.

So all I did was repeat his words back to him in context of this situation - I didn't in fact "change his words".

Yes you did. You took his generality about this type of situation in Japan, and tried to make that applicable to this specific case.

It's like a guy saying "some women are [fill in the blank]" and me reporting that he said you (girl in tokyo) are [fill in the blank].

He is, in fact, applying a blanket statement to this situation.

No, he didn't.

In other words, women reading this have every right to assume that a rape took place, and to make the personal judgement that they should be concerned over their general safety while out walking at night.

And yet you have repeatedly requested the mods remove posts where posters have stated that the man has the right to be presumed innocent due to the fact that sometimes women lie. I point out that what's good for the gander, is good for the goose.

P. SmithToday 10:50 am JST

There is no evidence that the police didn’t force this confession, which is why I’m not taking a stance on whether they did. You are assuming they did not.

I don't even know how to process this comment.

You are going at this completely backwards. It is basic critical thinking that one doesn't form a theory without first having evidence.

Scientists don't go, "Well, there is no evidence that x didn't happen, therefore x is a possibility."

You need evidence first: then you can form your theory, test your theory, and prove it.

There is no reason to think, and no evidence for, the contention that the police forced a confession out of this suspect. Therefore, raising that as if were a real possibility is completely against logic.

My issue is you are making inferences about my stance that are not logically derived from my posts.

You literally said "Police here force confessions". I took that statement as it seemed to be intended: to say that you think that the police in this case forced this man to confess.

Later you walked it back a bit, saying "My personal opinion from the available evidence is that this guy likely raped the victim, but that doesn’t necessitate that he did."

While I recognize and acknowledge that you walked it back, the fact remains that there is zero evidence that the police forced a confession in this particular case, so it's pretty clear that you were in the wrong for having brought it up in the first place.

Police said Wada has admitted to the charge and quoted him as saying he was irritated after having an argument with a female colleague at work that day

...............................wait....what? This innocent victim could've been having a horrible day, then for this muppet to do that to her because he had a falling out with a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT woman? You poor poor woman. My heart goes out to you. Thje police should give her father and brothers 20 mins. unsupervised with this idiot!