Kazuaki Shimazaki comments

They will get suspended sentence and probably get a civilian contract or consultant role if they have some close connections in the Japanese military.

I know where that idea comes from. I sure hope not (again). The Japanese judiciary needs to recognize there are some crimes where a "suspended sentence" just isn't good enough.

Even if we must insist on non-custodial punishment, there's a need for something more than "If you don't commit a crime within a certain period, no punishment for you other than the stigma (the value of which varies anyway)". Perhaps they can be treated analogously to the bankrupt, with all their assets and income beyond bare subsistence being diverted to the victim as if she's a debtor.

I will also point out that in this individual case, the men who confessed and apologized. Yet upon their names being released, they took back their confessions and are still calling the woman a liar, despite their supervisor admitting in court that he lied to protect them:

While I have no reason to believe they are not guilty here, I'd also point out that as a matter of procedural justice, they were almost certainly short changed. What they essentially did is a form of plea-bargaining - I admit fault and accept being fired; you quietly shuffle things so I avoid criminal prosecution. Under public pressure, the government in effect broke its promise and prosecuted them.

When it comes to prison time, sorry, it's every man for himself.

These pathetic little men admitted their guilt and their superior officer admitted he lied to protect them. 2 yrs is a paltry punishment, and by the way, has their supposed superior been charged also. He is just as guilty as them.

What should he be charged of? What criminal law did he break?

And to be fair, one can understand what he's thinking. The commander's job is first and foremost to keep his unit running. Like it or not, those three are veterans with ten years of service. They are the ones that keep the subunit working. Gonoi's still learning the ropes and won't be replacing any of them anytime soon. If Gonoi quits, the unit keeps running. He might be able to do without one of the three, but all three and his subunit would likely freeze.

Imagine an enemy soldier jeering at her from a trench across no man's land! Hopefully there will be a medic there to help her affirm her bravery and resilience!

Is there anything in the scenario that allows this to be justified as "training"? Some personnel, such as pilots, may be expected to take Survival and Evasion training that includes simulated interrogation, but such training is run by specialized units, not impromptu. Partially to avoid these problems.

BTW, I'd be blunt - you should have higher self-esteem. If a club activity involves suffering from "sempai" that intend to cause you grief, I suggest having the self-esteem to quit. Of course, perhaps that's harder said than done but then don't try and treat it as a positive or justified thing decades after the fact.

Intent is not magic. You can say you didn't intend to cause harm, yet still cause harm.

From the viewpoint of criminal law, intent IS "magic". If we accept the premise that they indeed did not intend the acts (or more according to procedural justice the prosecution could not prove the intent), then they lack the mental state and must be acquitted on that basis.

Prosecutors say Hakamata is guilty, arguing in their opening statement that it was possible for him to have committed the crime at the miso shop where he was working as a live-in employee, as the suspect was likely to be someone related to the company.

I'd hate to be convicted of murder because I happen to live in and have a relation to the victims ...

Would it be too mean of me to suggest that this man isn't really the type to worry too much about safety or was just hasty that day, got his fingers cut off and only then racked his brain for pretexts to get money?

It is not the fault of companies, which is the most common response here. I would say it is the workers who don’t plan their days to get the required 8 hours of sleep. Most people work and then go home to watch tv all night. Also drinking is not good for sleep.

Part of 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week (or even a bit less) is so that people have a reasonable amount of time to recreate, rather than feel forced to sacrifice sleep time so they can have some time to watch TV or immediately hit the sack upon reaching home.

wolfshineOct. 23 07:49 pm JST

while you slave away for a third of the money your American equivalents are making, while also never using your paid holidays, the chief corporate stakeholders are

To be fair, while the Japanese boss lives well compared to the Japanese salaryman, he also doesn't earn that much compared to an American or European in an equivalent position. It's one reason for Ghosn's troubles - them trying to cobble together an aggregate compensation package that's more competitive than Japan's norms would allow. Doesn't make what they tried legal but it is important to understand they would just have paid him openly in the US.

=

It'd be nice if Japan at least tried to put the squeeze on the companies. Any company that says they can't hack it with only 40 hours a day must, on their own resources, audit their own days to prove they had done everything possible to be more efficient. They can even drop quality if that's what it takes to get the hours down.

@falseflagsteveOct. 17 05:50 pm JST

If you don’t care about safety of kiddies than that’s up to you. Don’t interfere with them then nothing to concern you or anyone else.

I suppose you've only been counting Western countries. One problem with them recently is that they always insist you join their latest fad - be it LGBT or this sudden concern for kids over the principles of the justice system.

I'd also suggest you don't care about the safety of kiddies that much, just as anti-abortionists don't really care about unborn babies. The extent of both your concerns is that you pay absolutely nothing. It not only implies you have zero concern about the very valid concerns of the other side - be it the right of someone to restore his life after serving his sentence or female autonomy - but it also implies you only care about what you preach if it is free for you.

I'd suggest if you must impose bans and want to show you care, you agree to pay for them. I don't know how much is the correct amount for a woman being forced to take and birth a baby she doesn't want, but the amount for this scenario is easy - the government will hand him social welfare, NOT at the bare subsistent rate, but at the rate a teacher would have made. That's the minimal price you should be willing to pay for banning someone elses' right to work.

@falseflagsteveToday 01:47 pm JST

Its common sense really.

It is a function of law to push back against "common sense" or "playing it safe" where it hurts the rights of individuals. A "common sense" or "play it safe" that finds less purchase in an Anglo-American audience is when "preventive detention" is imposed on suspects. The basic principle behind the two are the same - the suspect / former convict may not necessarily do bad things, but they are an Elevated Risk Group; thus the "safe play" to protect the "weak" in society is to shaft his rights.

But the government has abandoned its plan to submit a bill aimed at creating a new system to block convicted sex offenders from jobs related to children...WHY??

The main objection is one of legal principle - read: the human rights we hold so dear that we fought over the centuries and now that we got it are treating in contempt in the rush to solve problems. Openly blocking convicts whose sentence (that is, punishment deemed proportionate) has ended is a significant violation of his rights. I'm glad some in Japan are, despite the gaiatsu of unprincipled foreigners who lose their shirt over kids, remembering this principle.

girl_in_tokyoToday 03:48 pm JST

That's what is great about science - it continually corrects itself. Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would just stop. And trusting decades of research with proven results is far better than making wild guesses based on personal prejudices fueled by hatred and homophobia.

I think his point is that while the "hard sciences" evolve, its solutions and recommendations don't swerve around as much as psychology. For example, Newtonian physics and relativity physics produce practically identical solutions for "simple" cases within common (non-specialist) experience, and classical physics and quantum physics produce practically identical solutions for things at human scale. Even something like caloric theory can reasonably predict something like conduction. 

Recommendations from psychologists would be the equivalent of such everyday use, and the recommended course of action shouldn't change that much.

First time offenses result in suspended sentences for nearly every guilty conviction in Japan, regardless of status.

I'm of the mind that Japan needs to stop "suspending sentences" when the involved amounts start going over say a million yen. Suspended sentences may be significant deterrence for Taro who needs to keep earning monthly paychecks. This guy probably already has enough stashed away he doesn't really need to work again. The fact he's part of the elite also means they know him and unlike mass society won't necessarily judge him for it. Maybe they'd avoid being caught on camera with him, but private meetings, even a quiet transfusion of cash if necessary - sure.

The eight plaintiffs, who live abroad in countries including Switzerland and France, had argued that foreign nationality was necessary to facilitate their work and lives abroad. But they also had hoped to maintain their Japanese citizenship.

Can't have your cake and eat it too, I guess. Other countries cheapening their citizenship to a mere qualification doesn't mean Japan has to do the same.

@zones2surfOct. 3 07:57 am JST

However, at this point, if the U.S. has revoked their naturalized citizenship and Japan as their original home country has revoked their citizenship because they became a U.S. citizen, they then become a stateless person. And international law states that this is not permissible. So, how to solve that?

Why put the burden on Japan in this case? Why not say the US cannot reverse its decision once it has granted it? At least the move to losing the Japanese citizenship is directly due to the individual's choices and will, while the decision to revoke due to ostensible fraud is a decision of the United States.

@Mr KiplingSep. 27 07:05 am JST

Of course I'm joking. This is only for Ukraine.

It's blatantly obvious Ukraine and Ukrainians were the motivators, but it remains to be seen if Palestinians, Libyans, Syrians & Afghans can get on "the train" as well even if it was built initially for Ukrainians.

@JeffLeeSep. 27 07:43 am JST

Seems like a positive move, but Japan still doesn't want refugees, despite being a signatory to the convention.

A refugee is someone that can't get in through the front door. Anyone that's actually an asset would have been allowed in through one of the other doors, without resorting to the refugee doors. And people have tried to claimed refugee status even when it doesn't fit them - such as that dead Sri Lankan woman claiming to be a refugee because she was threatened by a man who lives in ... Japan!

Japan just doesn't let these people sneak their way in.

First observation - Westerners are all too willing to throw their "rule of law" principles out the window when they hear the word "kids".

Second observation - and another country falls to this urge.

Third observation - not every country thinks laws should be things that are constantly expanded, especially repressive ones which this one is.

I think the judge decided to accept that he was indeed doing it at the deceased's request. Life is not considered disposable in Japanese law, so it was illegal for the man to agree and do it, but it was a factor in why he got about the lowest possible sentence within the regular range.

@Alan HarrisonToday  05:04 pm JST

Fly back to Tokyo. You have be kidding. Who on earth would put their faith in Japan's so- called legal system. Even Japan's imbecile judges don't have a clue about justice. They are just a bunch of scared rabbits.

You are making some rather defamatory claims. Care to back them up? And be careful, you need to show Japan's judges are particuarly weak. Remember that while a "pro-government" judgment doesn't demonstrate judicial independence, nor does it automatically show a lack thereof. If the governent's case is strong (as it should be), the judge is not supposed to let the need to demonstrate judicial independence (which to put it in the crudest form is to make an anti-government judgment) keep him from adjudicating as the law demands.

Innocent defendants do not jump bail.

It's possible for an innocent defendant to jump bail, but all the surrounding evidence and investigations in other countries clearly point to a direction that Ghosn is at least not being arbitrarily detained. A company dispute does not mean Ghosn did not violate the criminal law.

I'd also point out that at the end of the day, Ghosn got a reprieve in getting bail at all despite being an obvious and as it turned out ACTUAL flight risk, and he betrayed Japan (or at least those who took a chance to give his [profanity] a reprieve. So I hope no Westerner complains again when he doesn't get bail - blame Ghosn!

While the government had planned to codify a clearance clause within a bill for enhancing economic security passed in May last year, it was struck down after some opposition parties expressed fears over the system potentially being an invasion of privacy.

Well, if that's what we need to do for international cooperation, sometimes there can be little choice.

Though it's hard to discern detail out of a short newspaper article, my instinct is that considering he had mitigating factor and his young age, this is a heavy sentence by Japanese (or Continental Law) standards even for killing two people. Maybe the judge is a hidden diehard fan for the old doctrine of patricide as an aggravated form of murder - patricide shouldn't be a distinct thing anymore because it violates the equality provision of the Constitution, such is the position of the Japanese Supreme Court certainly, but the wide sentencing range for homicide certainly allows a conservative judge to slip it back in through the back door.

Elon Musk is just being fair. The case for Taiwan not being part of China is uber-weak despite the attempts of the United States to adjust wording to keep it an arguable position. Arguable is very far from actually being strong, and recognizing that Taiwan is this extralegal jurisdiction the PRC suffers and acting accordingly may be the best route of keeping said jurisdiction alive for as long as possible.

Good idea. The reality is that resources are limited, so even if this experiment is ruled a success, it's unlikely the scale of issue will grow to more than 1 per class (1 in 40) in the near future. Any student who wants to use one will be in a tough race to demonstrate he is most in need of said robot of an entire class. Even if the school allows private substitutes, they probably cost a piano each, so it'd be an uphill fight to convince all but the very richest parents to pay a million yen for a private robot.

The other 39 students are going to have to tough it out and go to school as recommended by the naysayers. And for the one student who's most in need out of 40, who's to insist that's not the best available solution for them. 

No, take those few special kids out of their comfort zones.

OK, Sven. If those "special kids" die from suicide or suffer any other harm, it'd be assessed as your fault. Still willing to say that? What? Not fair to put the blame on you? But that's one of the problems facing the schools and boards above them - if they force the special kids to school in the 21st century and they die, parents are very liable to sue the involved school. Any strategy they suggest will have to take this fact into account.

Look, from the fishing industry's perspective, they would never be sincerely happy with this plan. The Japanese government's duty, however, is not only to the fishermen. It's the same mistake as the Okinawans - they want the government to favor them *at the expense of the rest (majority!) of the Japanese population*. And they wonder why after some efforts to placate them it never goes well for them.

It's why Canada legalized it - they realized that the problems caused by illegality were worse than the drug itself.

Let's at least try to stop and slow the flooding before just leaving some compartments flooded.

Cigarette smoking is far more deadly, yet nothing is ever done. Legalize marijuana, tax it, make some money and everyone will be happier.

Cigarettes are being "pumped" out in Japanese society as far as I can tell. The only reason we leave alcohol alone is because by the time we got around to trying to stop it, it's too big to be stopped without causing excessive pain, so now we live with it. Without cannabis, it might even be the optimal choice for Canada or the Dutch, but it's not necessarily true anywhere else.

We don't need to add another chemical (or chemical family) to the list of tumors we really should be excising but have to leave alone because it has gotten too big.

Someone check his background. He might be a Chinese sleeper agent. His speech is a typical example of defamatory speech. Even if one argues that his word choice is technically defensible, phrasing it this way here and now has no plausible public interest justification to counteract the clear disadvantages it brings, including giving hostile states a useful word bite.

@JJEToday 07:37 am JST

The fact is the environmental impact and potential long term health implications are far from known. There has been a concerted campaign to falsely obscure the truth in the local and western media.

In other words, as far as you know, there are no significant environmental impacts or long term health implications, and all you are really doing is asking for proof of a negative.

@quercetumToday 08:46 am JST

These two types of water, contaminated and cooling water are inherently different however, as they come from different sources, contain different radionuclides and require different levels of sophistication in terms of the treatment methods involved.

And Japan does seem to be working harder to clean the water. The only difference that matters is how much is left in the water at the point of release. The available information says that Japan is not releasing more. At some point you have to let go.

One reason we have international organizations like IAEA is to balance between competing demands and viewpoints. Japan satisfied the IAEA, thus it satisfied what passed for procedural justice in this case. You will need to show some manifest error (not jump at shadows) before you can even begin to challenge that.

As an alternative, if you are willing to pay out of your pocket the difference between the cost of what they are doing now (and there's nothing wrong with choosing the cheapest method that meets the standard - that's why we have standards, so entities can focus their priorities on other things once they are met) and the cost of whatever method you prefer (and assuming your method has no disadvantages), the alternative can be considered.

@antifunToday 09:15 am JST

But so many people demanded this "pointless gesturing" before it was actually done.

@sunfunbunToday 09:04 am JST

a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

If he literally lacks a sense of moral responsibility, he won't even have tried to take care of the bedridden mother. He would have dumped her before anyone can even think he had any duty to sustain her existence.

I think Abe's basic point is sound. It's nice to think that we wouldn't have done it, but only a very small portion of the general population (unfortunate parents that take care of permanently bedridden kids for years on end, for example) would have analogical experiences such that they can have honest confidence when declaring they won't have done it.

1glennToday  09:42 am JST

I am so used to the idea of joint custody that I don't understand the idea of not having it.

Here's some interesting commentary (in English too) on the issue:

https://www.international-divorce.com/japans-one-parent-rule

It is alien to Japanese tradition and Japanese law for a child's parents to have any significant sharing of parental responsibility upon a family break-up. When parents separate in Japan, one parent invariably takes the child and the other parent largely or entirely disappears from the child's life. It is an extension of the traditional Japanese custom that children belong to a family and can be registered on the official Japanese koseki (family register) of only one family. Thus, the one-parent rule is not merely the mandated law but it is also the societal norm. Indeed, it is considered entirely inappropriate in Japan for the parent who does not have custody of a child to interfere with family peace. and with the child's best interests, by demanding more than occasional and extremely limited contact with a child. It is also considered to be entirely inappropriate for a Japanese court to interfere with family peace by taking any significant action against the parent who is in possession of a child except for suggesting and encouraging mediation or conciliation in the context of the rule that a child “belongs” to the one parent (and his or her family) that has custody of the child.

A significant reason for the one-parent rule, as well as the concomitant practice of drastically limiting child visitation, is to allow and encourage the custodial parent to establish a new family with a new spouse. It is common in Japan for a custodial parent's new spouse to adopt a child from a prior marriage. Thus, if the noncustodial father has significant contact with his child, it would significantly hinder the mother's opportunity to remarry, which would be considered in Japan to be unfair to both the mother and the child.

I'd add only that because the vast majority of divorces in Japan are done without the involvement of judges, as a rule it's only when things go bad that things escalate to court, and at that point the priority is to avoid the worst case. If relations have been poisoned to the point spouses are willing to defame each other (a common complaint as can be seen on this thread) in front of their children, mandating joint custody is unlikely to produce better overall outcomes, and may even be a door to disaster.

@Hito BitoToday 02:08 pm JST

Do an investigation. Research the situation further beyond "hunches" of the locals. Use the scientific method, and if wrong is being done, prosecute or press for reparations. Because we all can't base our reality on your "hunches" or "gut feelings," now, can we?

And here we bump into the problem where the burden of proof has to be adjusted by the actual ability of each party to produce it. If it's say a SDF base, then at least the Japanese government would have full jurisdiction to perform tests. Whether you believe they would report any bad news to their full value is another issue - but at least they can do the tests.

On a US base they de facto (and likely de jure) don't have that jurisdiction. They basically have to take whatever the US military admits to. Much as we may argue for "investigation", when the investigation isn't going to happen a decision will have to be made on whatever information is at hand, rather than insisting we must all act as if it definitely did not happen.

FWIW my personal thought is that the US military is a large organization, and when you are above a certain size, you will have a non-zero failure rate. Any single person is most likely not a criminal, but put 1000 random guys together and the odds favor at least one or two of them to be such. So if a few honest accidents happened with the fire extinguishers, so be it as long as it is not an above average rate.

But that's not the same as being kept in the dark.

However, if you are actually upset that Chinese people are calling up Japan to complain over the phone, then you are a massive loser, the very type women mock and are repulsed by.

It's still wrong, especially since the recipients of the calls have no direct control over the decision. The right of protest still means you should direct your words at someone that may seriously be able to help.

If the goal is to indirectly press their victims to press on the government, in essence it is terrorism-lite. Too small (at least on a case-by-case basis) to qualify by far, yet fundamentally the goal is the same.

Chappell's defense team has expressed concerns that if extradited, he might be made to confess under duress. Japan has argued that police interrogations in principle are recorded.

Japan needs to give diplomatic assurances that the principle would be applied to this specific case, not make a general statement of principle.

The problem here is what are ECHR standards, even, in concrete terms?

If you say it's the unconditional permission for attorneys to attend interrogations, then Germany doesn't have it for the police interrogation phase. You do indeed have to the defendant speak to a lawyer in some way, which Japan allows in principle.

The length of interrogation ... well, its said that it is now, on principle, 8 hours a day

What a concept ,bail. The Japanese authorities heads must be spinning.

As for this, previous ECHR case law has allowed for at least 60 days of pre-trial detention. And anyone even mentioning the name starting with G should remember his contribution in ensuring bail rights for foreigners who come after him.

I'm even more surprised that the JGov has let it adrift

I'm not sure they can help even if they want to. The budget for this fiscal year has already been allocated several months ago. Every yen (down to an error measured in mere hundreds of yen at most) has already been assigned to one department or another, for use in one month or another.

YubaruToday 05:16 pm JST

Well, then it's time to stop all outside activities right? Construction workers are in the sun just as long, if not longer than these baseball players. Oh and what about the old guys who are directing traffic at these sites too!

Construction workers aren't competing. While it is still bad, to some extent they can cope by moving more slowly or procrastinating more when the heat gets bad. His work chief is likely to be a veteran who understands what it is all about. He's not expected to make a maximum exertion in the blazing sun. The societal costs of unfinished buildings also exceeds that of competitive sports.