Court rejects damages suit by man in forced sterilization case

, but i'm still shocked at the fact that there were forced sterilization eugenics-based laws up until 1996! Like whoa. But I do remember that wwii it joined that other side, but after the war, it seems America took over, so then why, why such laws existed?

US did do a lot of sterilization as well --this is from Wikipedia

... The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.

Sounds like he has a case.

Ok, child p0rn ban in Japan was passed in 2015 (meaning that before that, it was legal...), but i'm still shocked at the fact that there were forced sterilization eugenics-based laws up until 1996! Like whoa. But I do remember that wwii it joined that other side, but after the war, it seems America took over, so then why, why such laws existed?

PS "Japanese people need to be more educated" as I was told by the Japanese people themselves about various such matters, doesn't make a very valid argument. It hasn't been closed off from the world then, and for a long time, there's access to internet which doesn't seem to be firewalled, so no excuses.

So the courts back the govt...….big surprise.....NOT!

This kind of thinking was a legacy of things like unit 731......sad

At some point, the past is the past. Remember the mistakes, but everyone in history, except a very few privileged people/families, have been wronged. 20 yrs seems a generous period.

Rape has a shorter statute of limitation and has a much longer emotional impact.

Murder has no statute of limitation, but when the murder dies, that effectively does it, really 60-80 yrs is the limitation.

Govt and laws are always evolving as the times dictate. Using the culture and morals of today against prior generations and cultures seems unfair. It was a different time, with different needs, and different sensibilities.

Should a 10 yr old be held accountable for stealing candy for their rest of their lives?

Should aggressor countries in prior wars be held accountable indefinitely?

Between 1948 and 1996, the eugenics law authorized the sterilization of people with intellectual disabilities, mental illnesses or hereditary disorders to prevent births of "inferior" offspring.

I thought the 1948 law changed things so that the two considerations were, where due to genetic disorder, pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother or the child's life would not be viable without suffering. I don't think "inferior" was used. There has been a lot of controversy about how the law was implemented, in particular because surgeons could go ahead without the permission of the patient.

@rainyday

Thanks. That makes sense legally. Kind of sucks for the plaintiff, but probably not the first time for him to be disappointed.

The state did not respond to claims about whether the eugenics law violated the Constitution." 

and yet 

The judge said that "[sterilization] infringed upon the freedom to have a child ensured by the Constitution."

Does this mean that a different challenge against the constitutionality (rather than about compensation) would have a better chance of winning?

Yes, but no. They would likely win a case challenging the constitutionality of the law. But the remedy the Court would give in such a case would be to declare the law unconstitutional and require the Diet to amend or repeal it. Since the law has already been repealed, this would have no effect at all, so it would be kind of a pointless lawsuit. To get compensation, they would have to bring a case under the Civil Code, as they did in this case. If they had brought it within the 20 year limitation period, I think they likely would have won on the merits.

So the government had the right to cut off our balls until recently, ~1996.

I'm so scared of the inhumanity of the system.

Kasuraki that has to be one of the most disgusting posts I have ever seen. Get a dictionary and look up empathy.

Shame, shame, shame!

This is not good for the clean outside image.

Could always shame japan into acting at the international court. Air the dirty laundry.

Let's see what happens at the appeal. Why did the guy wait so long?

obladiToday  06:28 pm JST

"The state did not respond to claims about whether the eugenics law violated the Constitution."

and yet

The judge said that "[sterilization] infringed upon the freedom to have a child ensured by the Constitution."

Based on what's here:

The first line concerns the abstract act of the law. The second line is about the concrete act of sterilizing the plaintiff. The second is much easier to win, simply because of how much more declaring the unconstitutionality of an abstract act means.

First, let's be brutal about it - as a demographic, people who have a disability are a lot more likely to have kids with one. Further, they are much less likely to be able to take care of them, and disabled kids are a lot less likely to be societally productive.

Second, in 1948, there wasn't that much food and other resources to go around. Would you not argue that society's interests are in concentrating resources on the healthy?

Thus, to say the abstract act is unconstitutional would be to say that even in a situation of dire straits, the right of disabled individuals to autonomy should be prioritized even if there is a high chance they would become a burden on everyone else (when everyone else did not have a lot to spare).

A court would be very slow in making such a determination.

A concrete act on the other hand, can be challenged from so much more. For example, things are less desperate by 1957. Further, the individual decision to sterilize the plaintiff may be faulty to begin with. Maybe his disability is not hereditary. Maybe it is hereditary but the child if borne still has a decent chance of being societally useful. And so on.

Finally, to say it is unconstitutional does not forbid the government from enacting acts in times of desperation.

That's terrible. I'm not surprised by Japanese law though, as it seems to be even worse than the state of the law in other countries.

The irony is, 20 years after the surgery it was still law, meaning the court would have just said "it's the law"... Japan needs to admit fault.

Wow... this is just criminal... If Japan is willing to pay Korea (several times) for WW2 I'm pretty sure they should pay this guy.

I don't get it

"The state did not respond to claims about whether the eugenics law violated the Constitution."

and yet

The judge said that "[sterilization] infringed upon the freedom to have a child ensured by the Constitution."

Does this mean that a different challenge against the constitutionality (rather than about compensation) would have a better chance of winning?

This is a classic example of not doing the right thing. Just following legal beauracratic statutes.

So those in power don't want to admit in anyway their fathers and grandfathers were so ethically out of touch they felt it was OK to sterilis a 14yo. My how things have not changed.

The sword is mightier than the constitution...

Well, the Statute of Limitations is an important legal barrier.