The Japanese Police are law unto themselves. They rely heavily on police powers rather than upholding basic freedoms and their constitution. When criticized, they quote the constitution and aspects of the Police Act with alacrity, but this is just in form and not in substance, as they quote these provisions only and don't say how they apply them.
They have created the Safety Commission system for complaints against the police. These commissions are comprised of individual zone commissioners to the central commission. Hence they have an interest in protecting the local police officer/station from the zones they head, and can never be objective. They simply dismiss complaints with a one liner: " The commission found there was no wrong done in this case.", and don't entertain any further correspondence. They flaw in their procedure is that they take the complaint, go to the local police for their version, and don't give the complainant a chance to response to the police's version. The Japanese don't understand the audi alterem partem principle, and rely on dogmatic power and authority rather than fairness and justice.
These standards form the fibre of the Japanese fabric of society hence there are problems in the education sector, labour and legal system, amongst others. It is all about sustaining 'sameness' over the ages, and not the constitution and democracty.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Does the principle of probable cause or reasonable suspicion apply in Japan? This article does not answer that basic question which is crucial in law to give the reader a true understanding of his/her rights when stopped by the police. If the principle applies, which I think it does, the police must have a valid reason to suspect you have committed a crime or don't have valid immigration papers/card before they can ask you to produce one. Is this article legally sound or just someone's opinion based on common sense and logic, and NOT law?
0 ( +0 / -0 )