Should confessions be admissible in a court of law?

yes but with checks and balances. The close questioning should be filmed in its entireity and the defendent should be able to remain silent and have a lawyer present at all times should they request to do so.

The question refers to Japan?

Agree with Aly above. It is very dependant upon the means and circumstances by which it is obtained and should never be the sole basis for conviction.

Perry Mason would never let his clients confess.

But seriously, I think they should be admissible as evidence provided there are two conditions.

One is that the suspect's interrogation is fully recorded and the other is that a lawyer is present when the confession is made.

I also think a confession should not be the only means of conviction. There needs to be other evidence produced, DNA, motive, means, opportunity etc.

We read a lot of stories on Japan Today about people who kill ailing family members for one reason or another and then call the police and confess. I think Japanese society attaches a great deal of importance to confessions.

I agree with cracaphat, and the others above.

'Confession' needs to be defined to answer the question.

And then there are the noted examples of people confessing to crimes they have never committed - without any pressure from authorities.

For any number of strange reasons - they want to go to prison to be taken care of, penitence, low self esteem, self flagellation, mental disorders, loneliness etc.

Sometimes these folks pass through the sieve and do time, incl extended time, because of their confession.

A neighbour at my last abode (15 years ago) had been arrested a few times for shoplifting, but never incarcerated. One New Year he voluntarily went to the police with goods he confessed to as being stolen by him.

The locals in my street doubted he really stole all that stuff, but he did do time. He must have been happy.