Kazuaki Shimazaki comments

Yes but was that because of UNCLOS that there could be no customs inspections or the desire to not start a war over it?

Let's be honest with each other. For one thing, warships have sovereign immunity. Second, you know there's no plausible case for a customs inspection. Customs is about controlling the flow of goods in and out of the country, and the Chinese carrier isn't being part of that.

I'd say the only legitimate reason we hadn't banned Alcohol and Tobacco outright yet is because they are too ingrained in the population such that we can't safely remove them, like a cancer that has gotten too big to cut. We don't need to make or allow a third massive tumor.

Totally disgusting behaviour by the school officials.

Or maybe a law that needs changing. The school's main interest here is not getting into legal trouble. If the law tells them they have to risk the kid's security in favor of some other interest (such as "parental rights"), well that's what they are going to do.

Unlike in the West, in Japan the washing machines open up at the top. Thus, the kid's head would be above the waterline. If the kid was put in an European Front-Loader, then it would be attempted murder, but with a top loader it's much less certain.

83 year olds are not all innocent.

I'm not saying he is. I don't even think he is necessarily suffering from a mental deficit. I just point out the cold reality in Japan, the old are deemed to deserve respect and a bit of deference even when they are wrong. Plus at 83 he might look kind of frail. It won't be hard to slide into "excess self-defence" in this situation.

Anyone considering future employment at NHK might want to keep this in mind.

I don't know why you seem to be seeing this as a problem. There's nothing but to believe that this man's actions was intentional sabotage. Termination of contract and damages are the least. He should feel lucky he wasn't arrested and brought up on criminal charges.

Kick him in the nuts and shout and run.

He's 83 years old. Even if you might kick a young man that way, the tide might just turn against the girl had she successfully defended against an 83-year old geezer.

Why do the Japanese people always vote for the same corrupt and incompetent LDP Party?? Seems like there is a monopoly on Japan's government since the economic bubble exploded in the 90's, a monopoly that only dragged down Japan.

Japan really needs a fresh blood leader with modern mentality and views, definetly not something any of those "candidates" can offer.

Unfortunately, the demands of being a Party of Power is different from just being oppositional, and none of the other parties have the institutional strength, knowledge or experience to run Japan, so every time in recent years when Japan tried some other party they didn't last very long.

GuruMickToday  01:11 pm JST

Jurisdiction is clarified in the first few articles of the Penal Code.

Article 1: Crimes Committed within Japan - that's the usual Territorial jurisdiction.

Article 2: Crimes Committed outside Japan - that's protective jurisdiction.

This Code applies to anyone who commits one of the following crimes outside the territory of Japan:

(ii) the crimes prescribed under Articles 77 through 79 (Insurrection; Preparations; Plots; Accessoryship to Insurrection);

(iii) the crimes prescribed under Articles 81 (Instigation of Foreign Aggression), 82 (Assistance to the Enemy), 87 (Attempts) and 88 (Preparation; Plots);

(iv) the crime prescribed under Article 148 (Counterfeiting of Currency and Uttering Counterfeit Currency) as well as an attempt thereof;

(v) the crimes prescribed under Article 154 (Counterfeiting of Imperial or State Documents), 155 (Counterfeiting of Official Documents), 157 (False Entries in the Original of Notarized Deeds) and 158 (Uttering Counterfeit Official Documents), and the crime concerning an electronic or magnetic record which should be created by a public office or a public employee in Article 161-2 (Unauthorized Creation of Electronic or Magnetic Records);

(vi) the crimes prescribed under Articles 162 (Counterfeiting of Securities) and 163 (Uttering Counterfeit Securities);

(vii) the crimes prescribed under Articles 163-2 through 163-5 (Unauthorized Creation of Payment Cards with an Electronic or Magnetic Record; Possession of Payment Cards with an Unauthorized Electronic or Magnetic Record; Preparation for Unauthorized Creation of Payment Cards with an Electronic or Magnetic Record; Attempts);

(viii) the crimes prescribed under Articles 164 through 166 (Counterfeiting or Unauthorized Use of the Imperial Seal; Counterfeiting or Unauthorized Use of Official Seals; Counterfeiting or Unauthorized Use of Official Marks) as well as any attempts to commit the crimes prescribed under paragraph (2) of Article 164, paragraph (2) of Article 165, and paragraph (2) of Article 166.

Article 3: Crimes Committed by Japanese Nationals outside Japan - that's active personality jurisdiction

Article 3-2: Crimes Committed by Non-Japanese Nationals outside Japan - that's passive personality jurisdiction.

This Code applies to any non-Japanese national who commits one of the following crimes against a Japanese national outside the territory of Japan:

(i) the crimes prescribed under Articles 176 through 181 (sex-related crimes)

(ii) the crime prescribed under Articles 199 (Homicide) and attempt thereof

(iii) the crimes prescribed under Articles 204 (Injury) and 205 (Injury Causing Death);

(iv) the crimes prescribed under Articles 220 (Unlawful Capture and Confinement) and 221 (Unlawful Capture or Confinement Causing Death or Injury);

(v) the crimes prescribed under Articles 224 through 228 (Kidnapping of Minors; Kidnapping for Profit; Kidnapping for Ransom; Kidnapping for Transportation out of a Country; Human Trafficking; Transporting Kidnapped Persons out of a Country; Delivery of Kidnapped Persons; Attempts);

(vi) the crimes prescribed under Articles 236 (Robbery), 238 through 240 (Constructive Robbery; Drug-Facilitated Robbery; Robbery Causing Death or Injury), and paragraphs (1) and (3) of Article 241 (Robbery or Forcible Sexual Intercourse; Causing Death Thereby), as well as attempts of these crimes (excluding the crime prescribed in paragraph (1) of Article 241).

3/Can you give me the "Japanese Law " that has been broken...I believe the "offences " occurred outside Japan.

Passive personality jurisdiction - if the victim is Japanese, then Japanese Law can apply.

Nothing really to see here. What the prosecutors meant was that neither accusation has enough evidence behind it for a good prospect of conviction, so the case isn't worth pursuing.

It's said that even in a civil case, in a Continental Law system you need 85% probability to win (as opposed to 50% in a Common Law system). The criminal standard is even higher but we can use this as a starting point. The probability of the woman's accusations was assessed as under 85%, as is the man's counteraccusation.

So the chance of the woman's version being true is estimated between 15 and 85%.

he will be forced to confess all his crimes

Well, what he did was pretty obvious.

@AntiquesavingAug. 9 02:05 pm JST

I'm not denying that. But we both know that other local jurisdictions' authorities have taken the opposite stance. Kanagawa is not wrong - it's also taking a balance, and I don't think anyone has openly challenged their stance. Just that unlike the critics' wishes the stance of the other jurisdictions is likely not to be wrong either. It's a matter of discretion.

I'd also add if you are a hotel in one of those other jurisdictions, you'd probably comply with the circular. The circular is not a legal act so it is not automatically illegal to fail to comply, but it does show the authorities' interpretation of the law. If it is not complied with and problems arise, the hotel may be held liable for not diligently fulfilling its substantive duties leading to consequences. They may be able to challenge this in court, but there is a degree of deference to executive authorities, and by the time you add this up, smart money is just to comply.

@StrangerlandAug. 9 02:19 pm JST

It could just be honest mistake. They thought they paid through the site, but hadn’t. Then they left thinking they’d paid, and being on vacation aren’t as readily contactable as people may normally be.

Surely they can remember whether they saw that little screen that asks for their Credit Card details. They'd probably also remember the frustration of being told to enter a "One Time Password" that's sent to their phone. Really, it's not that plausible you don't know whether you paid through the site or not.

No, foreign residents are not required to show their resident card

As far as I know, no one has asked a court for adjudication on this affair. As it stands, however, this is actually kind of iffy and hardly as clear cut as the likes of Arudou Debito would like it to be.

Let's work through the problem from the basic starting point of there being no specific administrative law to regulate Ryokan. In that case, you and the ryokan would handle it as a matter of free contracting under Civil (private) law. If the ryokan isn't happy with how well you proved your identity, it has full discretion to refuse.

Of course, the Hotel Business Act modifies this somewhat by adding Article 5 which restricts the right of the ryokan to not contract. People like Debito usually ride on this. However, even here it's already less than clear whether demanding and recording proper identification qualifies as a "denial" rather than just a condition in the procedure of contracting. Considering this is a severe restriction on the ryokan's freedom to contract, very arguably the correct reading is to read it minimalisticaly, leaving as much of the ryokan's freedom as possible.

In addition, Article 6 of the HBA imposes the duty on ryokan to obtain and keep information ready for submission, and imposes a duty on the lodger to provide that information to the ryokan. Further, there's an implication that the information is to be provably correct (otherwise, how can it be known whether the lodgers or the ryokans have fulfilled their duty).

The substantive duties in Article 6 does not come with a prescribed procedure. It is thus left to the executive authorities to determine what that procedure is, balancing the goal of retaining accurate information (and ensuring everyone is fulfilling their substantive duties) with the practical ability of the hotel to obtain, verify & record said information and also with not creating an excessive burden on the lodger.

In that light, authorities have balanced this in different ways - often prescribing procedures (using circulars and notices) that require hotels to photocopy primary sources (the cards). This is in essence asking the hotel to use rights it already has, rather than creating new rights. From that point of view, such a procedure is also acceptable by law.

If I'm one of those people with Resident cards, I'd just put it up.

I've done ALT work in Japan and compared to bullying in the Western world and in Southeast Asia, Japanese bullying tends to be more psychological and constant

Which makes it hard to take action. Even if you draw a hard line against physical violence, you can only go so hard on kids using their mouths, and even less so if they used them after school hours. And if they restrict their bullying to so-called "ostracism" ... well, you can't force people to associate.

If DV is an issue, that can be solved by sending the perpetrator to jail. 

That's called mopping up the spill after it has occurred, rather than preventing it in the first place.

I don't think Japanese necessarily object to the kid seeing both parents, but rather believe that single custody better avoids the worst outcomes, which of course is a DV scenario that's "Not Proven" and thus allowed to continue. If parents parted on good terms, then visitations can easily be arranged by one parent suitably exercising her custody rights.

Quality of procedure is relative - remember you should really be focusing on the IOC now, and their procedure is "Unconditional Deference to National Authorities" - in other words, a man with YY (sic!) chromosomes would be a woman if their home country is willing to write that on their passports. The national authorities' criteria is, to use your words "Unspecified". You tell me if anything the IBA could do can be worse than that.

what was the criteria

The presence or absence of XY chromosomes is a pretty up or down criteria, isn't it?

the decision was made unilaterally by the IBA’s secretary general."

You've been borrowing from APNews, are you? Anyway, it's hard to see the fatal problem with this. It's one thing if there was an established procedure and the IBA Secretary General over-rode it. But in the absence of prewritten procedure the uncontested priority is on substantive justice. Are you seriously saying that the IBA Secretary General should pretend that did not happen? Aren't leaders there to make hard calls where the procedure doesn't reach?

Everything's unspecified! Boxing institutions are already known to be corrupt, but the IBA getting banned even by the IOC, now that just takes an extra level of corruption!

Let's be honest about this - do you seriously think if not for the West's strong reaction to the Ukrainian Festivities that the IBA would be banned? Anything about corruption seems like pretextual than anything.

To be honest, I think the chances are way less than 50% the IBA was intentionally abusing its power, or that this is some kind of Russian information op. The most natural reaction here would be to get those two tested here and now, and at that point any Russian lie would be busted for good.

If anything, they or their governments should have gotten them tested as soon as they are banned - at least if they are confident of their innocence. When you are already "convicted" it's a bit late to talk about the "right to silence" or "the burden of duty lies with the prosecutor" or "privacy" - you are just going to have to prove your substantive innocence. You can't just hope your next contest grounds won't even question your bona fides.

Unless, of course, you can't.

Uh-uh. NO. We don't know if they're honest because they don't share

Look, you people can't have it both ways. You are both arguing they are already sharing too much and that they don't share enough at the same time. It's one or the other, and really this is just a smokescreen to excuse yourself not testing those people and unconditionally deferring to national authorities who, of course, use unknown criteria.

Well, the West has concentrated their tests - and they were unable to discover anything. Time to be a good loser. The point of a test is that you are willing to admit it can go the other way.

The Russian-dominated governing body was given the unprecedented punishment of being permanently banned from the Olympics last year and has not run an Olympic boxing tournament since the Rio de Janeiro Games in 2016.

I know that these days "Russian" can almost be a synonym for "bad", "dishonest" ... etc these days, but this incident may be an example when the Russians are the honest ones.

Unless those two don't have XY chromosomes and don't have elevated testosterone levels, the IBA was correct to order the test, even if beating a Russian boxer did happen to be the last straw. And the disqualification is a value exercise - the consequences of testosterone on muscle and skeletal building aren't a secret (it's probably bigger than consuming drugs at a barely detectable level), and while scientists can inform us of them, ultimately whether to pretend the difference does not exist in the name of "diversity" or not is a value proposition.

Being on the conservative side of things, that a Russian dominated organization will take their course of action is perhaps predictable, but nevertheless justifiable. The Russians are also heavier on substantive justice than procedural - they won't necessarily insist on a "procedure" when the substance seems clear, and a procedure can be overriden if the results are manifestly wrong.

The emotion laden reaction of the IOC seems unjustified.

That has always been the case, but generally you still try to keep the "main stars" reasonably well-fed, happy, comfortable. They are only poor relative to the real rich. This is not happening this time.

They'd be livid and scream racism, of course.

Because it IS racism. Adverse actions for reason of abstract suspicion of a certain demographic is stereotypical racism.

I understand the sentiment over the TMZ incident. Having said that, by the rules of procedural justice so advocated by the West, they had been found the equivalent of "Not Guilty", and they are already being disadvantaged by being subject to an above average run of tests - which may turn out to be the grilling of innocents.

So keep those feelings inside.

@virusrexToday 04:12 pm JST

By having the parent of the victim convince her to drop charges for economic profit?

You seem to be assuming the victim has already taken her decision on how gravely to view this event. Or maybe she's already gone catatonic from the shock of the experience.

I agree if her mind is already set on seeing this gravely, it will be greatly stressful psychologically for me to deny her opinion. However, the impression I got from the article, based on the very limited information, is that the girl is probably more confused than anything over suddenly being kissed. Which means as the parent I get a window to help her decide how to frame this.

If that's the case, I'd argue it is entirely the wrong decision to guide her into taking this too seriously. Remember the damage her is not physical, it's psychological. In principle, if she thinks of it as nothing, it is nothing. And if she thinks of it as something worth her life, she'd suicide over the incident.

What's done is done. There's no point in assigning a larger value to it than necessary. Such as by actively proposing criminal liability - all that does is define in her mind what happened to her is really horrible, bad enough it deserves prison. That's just cutting the wound deeper. And that is before you take into account how this drags the case out. For example, she'd have to testify in court. She'd have to rehearse that testimony. She'd have to hear the prosecutor frame what happened as the worst thing that happened to anyone (Oh woe is me), then the defense downplay what happened (since this is after she's completely trained on the gravity of the case, having it denied now IS going to hurt).

If you want to inflict waves of permanent trauma on your daughter, go ahead.

At the same time, there's no point in pretending nothing has happened - societal indoctrination makes it impossible to sell a story that nothing or little has happened. An attempt to do so may be interpreted as me not valuing my daughter enough.

The best way out of this situation, as far as Victim-Centric thought is concerned, is to try to frame it as an incident of moderate severity. It's beyond ignoring it, or even getting a cheap apology. But it's not the end of the world either, and better yet, it is resolved with something in her favor. She's not "sacrificing" - she was harmed and got proportionate damages, all without suffering through the court experience. She got her own back. Now she can move on with her life.

If you get punched, and you inflict disproportionate damage to your opponent in return, that doesn't change the fact you were punched, or that the punch hurt. But it should be possible to turn that into a positive experience in your mind. More positive than if you drag him through the criminal justice system.

If my daughter proves insistent, I can probably still make a saving throw by agreeing to support her through the legal process. Kids know sometimes their parents have different opinions, but appreciate it when their opinion is respected, deferred to, or otherwise allowed to go ahead despite the opposing opinion of the parent.

@virusrex Today 10:56 am JST

I'd prefer to call that "proportionate punishment" rather than "economic profit". But then, what's wrong with economic profit? Girl doesn't benefit from putting the guy in jail. Getting 400,000 yen for her use does benefit her.

I'd dispute it is unhealthy to ask people to have a proportionate view of the harm they suffered (and by extension what they can reasonably ask for in return). Let's start with an extreme example to make the issue more visible:

You live in a jurisdiction where the penalty for stealing, no matter how minor, is death. Someone comes and filches a piece of bread from your table.

How ready are you to repeat your entire logic and insist the only solution here is to pass him to the police knowing that he will die for your piece of bread?

And if you aren't willing to insist that's the only solution, how would you distinguish this example from our present case? Are you sure you are not letting indoctrinated "ick" factors infiltrate your calculations?

Last time I saw a child riding and hitting several people.

What you should ask yourself is whether said "several people" were significantly hurt or whether they felt that annoyance they feel when a kid smashes into them. Kids will be kids and unless this is causing serious injury this is a weak reason to ban or limit a useful tool.

@commanteerJuly 29 07:45 pm JST

And these guys would tell their daughter, "Don't worry, little darling. That's just an acceptable greeting in many countries."

Here's what I would tell my daughter, "No, what happened wasn't acceptable, at least not in Japan. However, I also think it is not big enough to ruin someone's life over. I'd like to punch him, but I don't think the police would see it too kindly. What say we try to squeeze a month's wages out of him and call it a day?"

I'd still put the case on record with the police, if only so he can't backbite me as easily, but I'd make it clear I'm open to Jidan and settlement. He'd probably pay up to salvage his job. The police would probably accept this since I don't think they really like handling these cases.

I've seen it. It might not have been great sportsmanship, but I think you can't fairly demand the same between a practice match or at least a match you'd have many retries in versus something like the Olympics. At least I won't be that greatly offended if a player can't pretend nothing has happened.

Besides, on my list of priorities, lack of grace is nothing compared to say continuing to choke your opponent for six seconds after the Halt signal and then putting on an innocent face and swearing "I just didn't hear it."

Does sportsmanship equate to being a robot? Because that's how some of the replies seem to sound.

For those who are talking about using them on planes, I must wonder how many people really would use them for that purpose, whatever the ads say. These motorized suitcases are just short of 10kg empty. Riding them is fine, but it'd be such a pain to lift one over your head into an overhead cabin even if it is allowed. 

And you are sacrificing two thirds of your typical 15kg baggage allowance in the hold. How many people would actually do that? These are best understood as a low-end, slow and cheap substitute for a scooter or moped.

I don't understand how the concept that men don't get to touch women without consent is so hard to understand.

Things do change when you up the ante from "not good" to "criminal". Criminal is supposed to be a serious smear, the point when society thinks it's impossible to "balance" the act out against the whole of his behavior, when he deserves a black mark that would basically ruin his chance to be a great asset to society (we all know what criminal records do to one's prospects). And there can be a question of whether a kiss on the cheek quite reaches that point, even though I do think the man had less than platonic motives when he acted.

If these are illegal then why are they allowed into Japan in the first place?

I'd guess because regular people won't associate a suitcase as similar to a bike or car. At some point, some party pooper bureaucrat (As an elite, he has a car. He might even have a driver. He'd never know the pain of the masses) noticed the "similarity", but by then a good number of them have been sold.

The onus should be on the government to prove the necessity of even slapping a category on these useful devices. They do the job. Their theoretical top speed may be 10 but will you dare go at 10 if you are that guy in the picture? Realistically this thing is safer than a bicycle for everyone involved.