@Robert CikkiToday 10:11 am JST
No, this is not true in here. You must prove yourself you're not guilty. We've had numerous cases like that in here. I remember, while still living in my homecountry, hearing of Shoji Sakurai.
If your "star" is someone who got clipped in 1967, then maybe things aren't so bad after all. Accidents do happen.
0 ( +6 / -6 )
daito_hakFeb. 28 04:33 pm JST
Shame on US for being such cowards. This is disgraceful. It’s highly doubtful that Japan would have done the same so easily for a Japanese citizen. I should recall the case of the three Japanese executives from Takata charged in US for the faulty airbags scandal which has cost the life of at least 26 people and has injured several hundred.
Oh, because what is at most a crime of negligence equates to an intentional crime. Let me also point out that the Americans acquitted the Captain after he plowed into a Japanese fishing boat. Speaking optimistically, you can say it shows the stringent standard of criminal negligence in the US. Speaking pessimistically, one may wonder whether such "stringent standards" will be extended to the Japanese executives.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
If they are not asking ALL students to certify this, then that is discrimination.
What's the point of asking the black haired students to certify? Since we are in Japan, it's very likely to be their natural color. Further, even if the hair is dyed, it is blending in, which is a choice that people should be allowed to make. Black is an indisputedably acceptable color in Japan, so there are no public interest or children interest grounds.
Anti-discrimination doesn't mean making those who clearly don't need to do work to do it just for the sake of "equity".
-14 ( +0 / -14 )
@smithinjapanToday 05:19 pm JST
So, all three committed more or less the same crimes, two are non-Japanese, one is Japanese; two they want to hang, one they dropped all charges... hmmm... wonder what the running theme is.
In essence, Saikawa is claiming he had reasonable motives plus was acting on legal advice from Kelly. Receiving legal advice and reasonable motives does not eliminate criminality and culpability. But it does reduce it and makes it easier for the prosecutor to go for Suspended Prosecution.
A problem with Anglo-Americans is that they confuse having some kind of defence with actually reaching the point of innocence. Let me try to approximate it this way. If in the American system you'll be thinking of reaching some kind of costly settlement with the regulators or Justice Department to avoid trial and possible conviction, in the Japanese system the closest equivalent to that is to throw yourself at the mercy of the prosecutor. With some luck, the result will be similar in that you avoid actual conviction.
-20 ( +2 / -22 )
@wanderlustToday 11:09 am JST
Whichever side the Court sides on, there is a need for the Supreme Court to step in on this case. What concerns me most is that we are not even talking similar cases, but really the same case brought up by different people. It is very bad for legal certainty for courts to be taking opposing stances on the issue. The Supreme Court will have to clarify the law and standards to be applied one way or another.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
@cleo Today 01:09 pm JST
Interesting. Mine definitely didn't - does it even happen with black hair? And would brown hair reach all the way to black for awhile? At least with relative commonality?
Anyway, she doesn't need beyond reasonable doubt. Unless the school had photographed the hair roots and they are indisputably black in the captures, she just needs to show it's more likely her hair was indeed brown at the hair checks.
If the school wants to argue after being shown evidence of brown hair that it was black only at the exact moment they were doing their hair checks, let them make the effort. It be possible, but could they make a convincing case it is likely?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
@wtfjapanFeb. 18 11:43 pm JST
how do you know that, because the school said so, girl stated her hair was naturally dark brown.
Given the presently available information, the only reason we have to believe the hair was brown is because the girl said so. Her teachers say different and let's face it there's a credibility gap between any teacher and a student, plus there were several of them. There's no sign she was able to submit any expert or other evidence her natural hair color is brown rather than black as asserted by her teachers - she doesn't need evidence at the time of her cutting, her present hair color or her hair color as a child should be enough to establish preponderance of evidence.
Further, her chosen point of contention is a hint not in her favor.
Most people don't care about how they won their court case. They just want tell their lawyers to find some way for them to win so they declare victory, get a payout and recover court costs. If girl's hair is provably brown, then she doesn't have to get into thickets like the constitutionality of hair regs. She just needs to say the regulations were misapplied in her particular case, and it has caused her great grief.
It's much more likely the court will invalidate a single, concrete application of an abstract act, or secondarily to read down the act (example: School rules that mandate black hair is not to be interpreted as binding on those with other natural hair colors) than get into the more contentious area of invalidating the entire abstract act.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
@Mr Kipling Today 05:42 pm JST
Private high school had a rule. Girl attends said school voluntarily agreeing to the rules.
One of many wrinkles is - did she? As Cleo's 05:11 pm JST points out, it's more likely unpleasantries like onerous rules were not detailed at the interview or another place ("contract negotiation" phase), but after she was enrolled (the contract was "signed") and it is sufficiently late it will be rather unpractical to back out.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
Just a disclaimer: I really think hair regs are Bull. If we must have hair regs, I'll say the hair reg should be on the lines of "You can choose your hair color as you enter the school. Even if it is Green or Purple. However, you will have to retain the hair color for all three years of your school life, so think hard."
Still, answers need to be made:
ClippetyClopToday 04:51 pm JST
What is this girl's natural hair colour? Which attorney is the onus on to prove it either way?
Since this is a civil case, the onus will likely be on the plaintiff to prove her hair is black to a preponderance of the evidence standard.
Also the judge claimed that “It cannot be said that the school was forcing [the girl] to dye her hair black,”, yet agrees that they left her with no other way to attend school unless she did so. Sounds quite forceful to me.
If you assume her hair is black, then she's being asked to remove the brown dye from her hair, not dyeing it black. Even if there is no way to get the hair black (for now) except to dye it, a one-time dye job until new black hair grows out is a lot less likely to damage the scalp and hair than to continuously dye new brown hair black for the pleasure of the school. Further, if we agree her hair was black, then even if she's trying out a new identity with brown hair, at least she used to have an identity with black hair, which makes it less damaging than if you force someone with brown hair her entire life to dye it black.
-7 ( +1 / -8 )
Extraditions have been refused before for various reasons, but it isn't going to happen this time. The State Department has already approved the extradition, and the courts have already reviewed and approved it as well. There's no change in the circumstances, no change in the fact solution, nothing to substantiate a change of direction at this point.
At this point, their struggling against the inevitable probably does nothing except to worsen their position. They've never really denied that they did it, and their entire defence is based on it being legal for them to do it (even though they know is neither legal nor moral in their homeland). Since it is hard to believe whoever will become their judge in Japan doesn't watch TV or read the papers, the result of these futile appeals is likely to be to worsen his impression of them and dent whatever last minute claim to being repentant they might have been able to offer.
And, really, a little suggestion to the usual suspects: If you want to help those two even a little bit, you might want to try another strategy other than shooting all those usual insults. It's just vaguely possible the Judge will swim past here, and if he does, I don't see how those usual comments will cause anything other than a quiet rage in him, which might just bleed through into the sentence. He's only human. Humans get harsher when their insititution has just been insulted.
9 ( +16 / -7 )
Harry_GattoToday 04:34 pm JST
This should not end like this. Assuming that the girl still has naturally dark brown hair then it is very easy to prove that the school was wrong and should be found guilty on appeal with the teachers involved being named.
One wonders whether the girl tried to arrange some kind of expert examination of her hair for submission to the court, and if not, why.
Let's be fair to the school: Just because she's a plaintiff doesn't mean she can't have overstated her case. It's not impossible that the school is correct that it's black at the roots but she thought she could get away with a "natural brown" color.
-16 ( +3 / -19 )
@ThonTaddeo Today 10:29 am JST
But when people see Japan's legal system doing things that would not be out of place in the PRC, people are going to criticize that.
In the PRC, Ghosn would have been "disappeared" (even Alibaba's Jack Ma disappeared for a bit recently). In Japan, at least we always know where he is (until he escaped). There's a gap between reasoned criticism and unthinking bashing. And there is a time when one should rightly concede one's poster boy isn't so much of a poster boy due to elements in his particular case.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
@ThonTaddeoToday 01:14 pm JST
Kazuaki, you can't possibly think that someone deserves something worse than deportation because of opinions expressed on an online forum.
Sure, but the question is whether a legal system that's 400 years behind the times, as suggested by Alan Harrison's "dragged back 400 years" will see things this way. For example, if Alan lived in the PRC, would he have made equivalent comments? Probably not because he'll be acutely aware of the possibility he'll be charged with "making quarrels and provoking trouble", Article 293 of their Criminal Code. Of course, one reason Alan lives in Japan and not in China may be because he doesn't want that risk. And that's fine. But then he should refrain from making comments that equivalate the two, or worse, may well put Japan behind China in this department.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
@Alan HarrisonToday 06:40 pm JST
As for the prosecutor's little ploy, how cheap, how nasty, how disgusting, how pathetic, how low down. As for the judge(s) that endorsed this condition, how feeble minded, how weak, how brain dead.
Perhaps we can make statements that take into account the fact Ghosn escaped?
Don't compare Japan to other countries, other countries don't want their legal syetems to be dragged back 400 years.
I'll be blunt here. I wouldn't say that even of the PRC's legal system, and you know this isn't true. If this is true, either you don't live in Japan or you won't dare say that because if your current statements are discovered, losing whatever is your current residency status would be a very lenient disposition. Ultimately, you know that they'll grin and bear your unsubstantiated insults, and that in itself proves that the above isn't true.
@Sal AffistToday 07:59 pm JST
These Americans probably spent their entire compensation from Mr. Ghosn on their legal efforts to fight extradition. They will be broke and unable to afford attorneys for their Japanese legal travails, once the Taylors arrive in Japan.
That's possible but it'll be their own darn fault. The fact they chose to commit their crime aside, reading their submissions to the US courts, they've been submitting their arguments, getting them rejected, and then resubmitting the exact same arguments as if nothing has happened. Their attorneys are either not doing their job (or maliciously trying to scrape all the money they can out of the case by running up the hours) by not being upfront with the Taylors about their real chances, or the Taylors are ignoring them.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
@Alan Harrison Today 05:08 pm JST
Unless you wish to argue that anyone, in any country that remands a defendant is "punishing" him, neither he nor his relative is being "punished". They do, indeed, have their rights restricted, but to balance the rights of the defendants + family and the need for the judicial process to go ahead is accepted in all countries. Or can you say that your country never remands anyone, including those who can hire Special Forces to escape to another country?
1 ( +3 / -2 )
I can show you the textbook, and in addition I can also show you a bill from California that shows that this kind of language that seems to put presumption of innocence in second place is not uncommon. On Slide 3, note the words regarding bail "If released the defendant will not **continue to commit crimes"*. Of course, one can argue that this assumes *the defendant has already committed the crime he is accused with in contravention of presumption of innocence, but such is the reality of real legislation.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Ghosn. Yes, I know what you want to say. You want to say he's only a defendant, not a convict. This problem is actually sufficiently well known enough it goes in textbooks. The conclusion is that 罪を犯した者 does include the Suspects and Defendants, so as to meet Chapter VII's focus on ensuring the integrity of the judicial process as opposed to Chapter VI's emphasis on ensuring the functionality of confinement.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
The relevant part:
*Article 103 A person who harbors or enables the escape of another person who has either committed a crime punishable with a fine or greater punishment [...] shall be punished by imprisonment with work for not more than 3 years or a fine of not more than 300,000 yen.*
2 ( +2 / -0 )
@bokudaFeb. 13 08:37 pm JST
89% of sentences are based on confessions.
Nearly 80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, but just 2% of them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.
Between guilty pleas and trials, the conviction rate was 99.8% in U.S. federal courts in 2015.
Just thought we needed some perspective here.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
@Alan Harrison Today 02:46 am JST
If Ghosn was considered low risk, why as he re-arrested, why was bail refused so many times with no reason given.
I didn't say he was low risk. As it turned out he was high risk. The prosecutor thought he was high risk, and in the end he was proved correct. The judge thought he was medium risk, so in the end he allowed the bail with relatively stringent conditions, and in the end he underestimated Ghosn.
I said before he escaped, it is at least not manifestly unreasonable for an apologist to argue he is low risk. Which is not to say someone arguing he is high risk is wrong, but at least the low risk argument is colorable.
Why were bail conditions so disgusting (who ever heard of a condition forbidding somebody to contact their spouse).
The expectation that the defendant stays honest is low in continental (not just Japanese) law, and that's the fundamental reason why Article 97 limits itself to suspects / defendants in jail, not on bail (as pointed out by every Taylor apologist). While we're at it, defendants are allowed to lie in court (which frees their attorneys from having to carefully adjust the testimony so it is maximally advantageous while not being provable perjury).
Next to them are their relatives, so we actually have this:
Article 105 When a crime prescribed under the preceding two Articles is committed for the benefit of the criminal or fugitive by a relative of such person, the relative may be exempted.
Yes, if the Taylors were relatives of the Ghosns, they may be exempted from punishment. And among the relatives, in Japanese law, the spouse is considered the closest relative, able to receive the largest shares of the inheritance, but also thus the least trusted in this situation. I say Japanese law here because I know some continental law systems puts the spouse in the same rank as the kids - can't exclude the possibility that they are informally closer within the same rank.
And if you understand this reason, you'll also understand that there is no reason for Article 103 to not apply to the Taylors.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
@P. SmithToday 10:46 am JST
I would be all for these two standing trial if the system weren’t rigged against them. That’s the real issue.
P. Smith, what kind of defenses can these two seriously make if they aren't in a "rigged system"? At this point, I don't think it's feasible to argue that they didn't do what was accused of them, so there's no significant dispute of fact.
There's no real reason for the Japanese (or any) court to side with their interpretation of the law either.
And what room is there for mercy for two defendants whose basic defense was "Nyah, nyah, nyah, your law doesn't cover this. Our law does, but yours doesn't, so Ha!" Sure, you can get off if the judge agrees with you, but if he doesn't this is not going to go well for you, is it?
As the American system has proved, no one will decide these two jokers don't need detention or can be bailed, so that isn't a factor in their concrete case. You can't say they don't know what they are being charged with either, since that was only the topic in front of the US court for the previous half year or so. Besides, they effectively claimed to be so familiar with the law that they know it better than the prosecutor. It's a bit late to be playing weak.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
I think the United States military may do well to consider changes to its policy. Japan is hardly the only country that's unhappy with it.
In essence, in these cases even the United States military does not dispute that mistakes, rather big ones too, were made. Since it is on duty, they get jurisdiction, and that's fine too.
The part that peeves the locals is that the United States will then apply a high standard for "criminal negligence", find that the perpetrator came up short by that standard, and then acquit him. Consistent with US law, I guess, and it may indeed be disproportionate to sentence him to the States' long sentences for negligent homicide, but the end result is that he goes unpunished.
Perhaps a better move in future would be for the United States, on finding that there are significant mistakes made that are insufficient to convict back home, to voluntarily waive its jurisdiction and hand him over to the local authorities. He will of course confess and get say 3 years, making it a proportionate sentence to his degree of actual liability.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
I can see China's Global Times having a field day with this.
The majority of judges ruled that protecting the community from a terror crime amounted to exceptional circumstances.
Oh, god, the lack of principles.
-1 ( +7 / -8 )
Allow me to vote on the side that he can be forgiven, or at least retained until after the Olympics.
First, we have to make a decision here. Do females speak more than men? That's a dispute of fact. I know that some studies have purported to refute the idea that women speak 20000 (or 5000 depending on version) versus men's 7000 (or 2000) words a day, but I think many people would have at least anecdotal evidence that women speak more. At the very least Mori can be allowed to opine that women speak more.
Second is what do we do about it? This is a dispute of "law". Remember that Mori did not say that there shouldn't be women. He says that the rules should be changed to guarantee women (but also men) cannot waste too much time speaking. This is an inclusive approach - ultimately, more women is acceptable to him (at least he says).
What's so horrible about that?
robert maesToday 08:04 am JST
The real problem is that nobody wants to replace him. Mori San is the ideal President for the JOC and Organising Commitee. It is his last stand. The one who would replace him will see his /her career burned when the cancellation is announced. Or the Games become a virus disaster.
Two genuine possibilities.
JeffLeeToday 08:09 am JST
What does that say about the state of governance and transparency within high-level Japanese administration? If this is the case, then Japan - with such structural administrative rigidity -- never deserved to host the Games.
The reality is Connections Do Matter.
-12 ( +5 / -17 )
China is laughing all the way to their syringe factories. So much for Japanese empty rhetorics of decoupling!
Definitely. The world bet on the wrong horse with China, and now it is very difficult to reverse.
18 ( +18 / -0 )
@vanityofvanitiesToday 04:32 pm JST
Do they not have a smart phone?
While it's not obvious because of extensive infrastructure, a 4G cell tower has to be within about 10 miles of the cell phone.
On the other hand, it might be a good idea to procure one satellite phone for each ship and sub, just for cases like this.
14 ( +14 / -0 )
P. Smith Today 12:00 pm JST
No, under the custody and control of her parents. Children do not have full rights until they reach the age of majority. Until then, their parents are entrusted to make choices for the children.
Believe me, I think I am aware of the standard legal rationalizations on this topic. However, in practical terms, how does this differ from the child being an object? We say the child is a Civil Law subject with "civic capacity", but has "limited dispositive capacity" (or some variant of this concept) before majority, the parent gets the right to choose "in the child's interest" and usually in exchange the child does not bear liability.
In this case, the child, ostensibly a subject yet deprived of her right to choose, nevertheless bears the liability.
Likely a lawyer, but not for the reason you stated.
I chose the words because I believe the court does have a legally-defensible option to do something if it is motivated. For example, Japanese courts have invalidated the portion of idol contracts that prevent them from dating in some cases, and those are contracts clearly signed at the initiative of the idol (not a parent).
0 ( +0 / -0 )
@P. Smith Today 10:19 am JST
Her parents contracted with the school and agreed their daughter would follow the rules.
So what is her daughter? An object?
The girl is suing for mental anguish from how the rule was enforced; she is not suing because the rule exists.
The interesting question would be whether this was the girl's first position, or whether it is the position after a lawyer told her the Japanese courts are simply not progressive / liberal enough for a lawsuit for the existence of the rule to have a chance.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
If you don't like the rules of a private school, don't apply to study there.
Did she (or a typical minor in Japan) really have a choice, though? Even if she picked the school and her parents went with her choice, schools banning dating may be very common, and I bet this was not the part they advertised - did they even mention it before slapping her with the handbook with that rule buried into it?
If not, then the whole "It's a contract" argument becomes a bit weak. It's an interesting attempt - let's see how far she will go.
9 ( +11 / -2 )
@bokuda Feb. 3 09:33 am JST
By escaping Bail, Ghosn committed a crime??!
Ghosn didn't break any laws by escaping bail. That's agreed on. However, that's not the same as the Taylors not breaking any laws. This is what they broke:
BTW, regarding your other quote, you misread its effect. It doesn't change the legal status of the foreigner or impose any new obligations on him. It allows the immigration official to, under the listed conditions, intentionally "reserve" (a.k.a. delay) the confirmation (確認) of his departure for 24 hours. Note the legal precision involved - the official isn't even authorized to "ban" (禁止) the departure, he is only allowed to intentionally "reserve" the "confirmation" - yes, the effect is the same in that the foreigner isn't leaving the country, but the precision here is still noteworthy.
0 ( +0 / -0 )