• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Can't we all just get along?

I agree with the point you are alluding to regarding criminal justice in Japan and the "dubious" high conviction rate for prosecuted crime in general. However this applies to trials, not reports of crime.

I do not have the percentage of the reports of crime turned into trial

I can't find any data on the percentage of rape reports in Japan that go to trial--but I expect that it is highly correlated with confessions. Nor do I know much about the attitude of the Japanese legal system to rape.

How can you expect that, since I assume you are not familiar with the Japanese justice system?

Anecdotally, but exceedingly high profile, there was a furore when Shinzo Abe (two prime ministers back, but less than two years ago) scandalously doubted in public that the "comfort women" raped in the hundreds of thousands in WW2 were actually coerced. There are still calls for a public apology.

I see the two cases very much un-related.
It is like relating a person who invites a friend and then has sex with him without open and explicit consensus and rapes in Congo..
Oops!

Regarding Japan's conviction rate in general:

Another one about "I Just Didn't Do It"

I have still to see evidence that people who are brought into trial for touching a girl in metro have (almost) all confessed.
 
How can you expect that, since I assume you are not familiar with the Japanese justice system?
Because I believe what I read from credible sources (such as those referenced) that convictions are almost guaranteed, and confessions are obtained for a very high fraction of trials.
 
Honestly, the thing about confessions in Japanese courts has been around since Feudal Japan. That was pretty much how they worked back then, as well -- evidence meant very little, confession was everything.

Teppei Kaneko always claimed that he was innocent (this is also the title of the movie, by the way..)
 
Teppei Kaneko always claimed that he was innocent (this is also the title of the movie, by the way..)

This may surprise you, but I was not referencing the one particular case you cited.

It may also be surprising to learn that not all cases are homogeneous.

I know, I know, get out, right?
 
Because I believe what I read from credible sources (such as those referenced) that convictions are almost guaranteed, and confessions are obtained for a very high fraction of trials.

"Prosecutors are reluctant to bring cases to trial without a confession" (speaing about a general crime).
Now, is this all your evidence?
Why should a person confess that he is guilty of touching a girl on the train, if he has no reason to do so?
Japanese masochism?

Back to the OP.
Do we agree that F. was not raped?
 
"Prosecutors are reluctant to bring cases to trial without a confession" (speaing about a general crime).
Now, is this all your evidence?
How many criminal trials in Japan have a confession obtained from the defendant? My belief based on my reading is the overwhelming majority. Tell us if you know.
 
Last edited:
How many criminal trials in Japan have a confession obtained from the defendant? My belief based on my reading is the overwhelming majority. Tell us if you know.

You claimed that most of the people brought to trial have confessed ("confessions are obtained for a very high fraction of trials").
Please, back your claim, in the specific case of people accused of touching a girl in the metro.
And, since you are there, please explain me why a man accused of touching a girl in the metro, feels the invincible instincts to confess, ad lose his face, his work and his friends, with no apparent coercion to do so.
 
Just a reminder of the OP. Fiona accepts the meaning of rape is vague and can depend on the POV of the people involved.
From the OP:- "I did not see it as rape. I had offered no real resistance and since he did not threaten me I could not be sure he would not have stopped if I had: so I felt responsible. At the same time I knew I had been raped. I cannot explain that any better: part of me was seeing it as I had been raised to see it: and part of me knew better. I know that is not very clear but I can do no better

I am not sure what he thought it was: I was conscious that he might have thought I had allowed him to come home with me for sex; and he might have thought he had reneged on his part of the bargain when he fell asleep. I had not had the "ground rules" conversation you see: and it is possible he saw things quite differently"


We can all agree about the situation where a man grabs a total stranger , drags her into the bushes, has forcible and violent intercourse, then runs away. Open and shut case.

Even Fiona is ambivalent in her account about whether her experience was rape or not.

We can all have our opinion but that's all it is.

If I do 35mph in a 30mph zone I broke the law. If nobody sees me, I get away with it, but I still broke the law.
In the case Fiona describes, I'm honestly unsure if anyone broke the law or not.
I know a man behaved unacceptably- he was no gentleman.
I feel a woman behaved surprisingly- being unbelievably passive.
I know both were to some extent intoxicated and sleepy- or even actually asleep.
If this was a story about seeing a ghost, I would consider both witnesses unreliable, as they were testifying to an improbable event. Given the incomparably higher probability of a man and woman alone in a flat ending up in bed together, I don't doubt a witness who says sex took place. But did a crime take place? No idea.
I have NO IDEA what the man imagined, whether he felt he was doing anything wrong at all, or if he even realised it had happened. If Fiona doesn't know, nobody can.

Was a crime committed? I don't know.
Do I think the man should have been subject to legal action? How can I, given that I don't know if he committed a crime?

It's just a horribly grey area.
 
You claimed that most of the people brought to trial have confessed ("confessions are obtained for a very high fraction of trials").
Yes that is my belief. Is it wrong? Or is it right?

Please, back your claim, in the specific case of people accused of touching a girl in the metro.
And, since you are there, please explain me why a man accused of touching a girl in the metro, feels the invincible instincts to confess, ad lose his face, his work and his friends, with no apparent coercion to do so.
None of that has anything to do with anything to do with what I have posted.
 
Francesca,
if you post something so serious in a forum, you are not expected to rely exclusively on your undefined "belief", but also be able to back what you say with some hard evidence..
Is it wrong? Or right? You may desist on offering me guidance in respect of what to post, thank you.
 
Is it wrong? Or right? You may desist on offering me guidance in respect of what to post, thank you.

Francesca, dear, you are not really expecting me to provide evidence to prove/disprove your claim, do you?
Last thing, since touching a girl in metro in Japan, is as unlrelated to the OP as rapes in Congo, why is not this part of the thread all moved to AAH and we all suspended, as it happened to me??
 
Last edited:
I don't mind what you do. But you are not denying it. Perhaps you do not know very much about criminal justice in Japan since you have no comment on this.
 
I don't mind what you do. But you are not denying it. Perhaps you do not know very much about criminal justice in Japan since you have no comment on this.

Ha-ha
Cart-and-horse inversion.
You made a claim.
I have asked you to back it with evidence, and you can not, so you are asking me to provide evidence to disprove your claim..
 
The Japanese criminal justice system has an extremely high conviction rate which was significantly lower before Japan eliminated its jury system in 1943. Lobbying by human rights groups and the Japan Federation of Bar Associations resulted in the passing of a judicial reform bill in May, 2004, which will reintroduce a lay-jury system in 2009.[1]
Many Western human rights organizations alleged that the high conviction rate is due to rampant use of conviction solely based on confession, notwithstanding Article 38 of Japan's Constitution,which categorically requires that "no person shall be convicted or punished in cases where the only proof against him is his own confession," and that no person can be convicted unless accompanied by other evidence to corroborate that confession.
Due to the lack of a jury system, the Japanese justice system (along with all other civil law jurisdictions) is said to be very bureaucratic and predictable. Because judges work under a fairly uniform system of evidence and procedure, which is indirectly supervised by Ministry of Justice, the district prosecutor knows exactly the types of evidence which are needed to secure a conviction from a judge. Consequently, failing to secure a conviction would be seen as serious failure in his judgement for pressing charges in the first place and even a single failure would have a serious negative impact on the career of a prosecutor. One of the consequences of this arrangement is that prosecutors rarely press charges involving the rape or assault of an acquaintance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system_of_Japan#Conviction_rate
 
@ Matteo Martini: Then ignore it, or disbelieve it if you like. Or don't say whether you do or not. Makes no difference to me.

ETA--never mind.

ETA2:

The Confessions Rate in Japan is not as high as the Convictions Rate, that is at least 99.9 percent, but it is still relatively high at about 92 percent.
Link

(This is from a District Court Judge, who explains it from the perspective of prosecutors)

Rate of accused who confess: (total)
1999: 92.3%, 2000: 92%, 2001: 91.5%
[PDF]
(Source is apparently Japan's Supreme Court website but I can't locate it there)
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom