4 ms·

From an ethical perspective, it matters that the Japanese criminal system has a 100% conviction rate and even the judge thinking the defendant is innocent won't

From an ethical perspective, it matters that the Japanese criminal system has a 100% conviction rate and even the judge thinking the defendant is innocent won't result in an acquittal.

chollida1 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system_of_Japan#:~:text=Japan%20has%20a%20conviction%20rate,is%20different%20from%20other%20countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system_of_Jap.... Not really what most people would expect when you say 100% > According to them, Japanese prosecutors will prosecute only the very few cases in which they are most likely to be guilty and not many others.[2][3][4] According to Ryo Ogiso, a professor at Chuo University, prosecutors suspend prosecution for 60% of cases they receive, and end prosecution for the remaining 30% through a simplified judicial process. Only about 8% of cases are actually prosecuted, and this low prosecution rate is the reason for Japan's high conviction rate.[3][5]
- cbracken 4y ago
  Quoting from Wikipedia [1]: The conviction rate is 99.3%. By only stating this high conviction rate it is often misunderstood as too high—however, this high conviction rate drops significantly when accounting for the fact that Japanese prosecutors drop roughly half the cases they are given. If measured in the same way, the United States' conviction rate would be 99.8%. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate#Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate#Japan
  - Waterluvian 4y ago
    Wow. I have now scrubbed this wrong fact from my brain. Thanks!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- polishTar 4y ago
  Speaking as a complete non-expert, I don't find that a satisfactory/comforting answer. Just a quick google search shows prosecutors in the US also selectively choose which cases to prosecute (it appears there are around 4x as many cases get dismissed than go all the way to a jury trial), but nonetheless there are many meritless cases that do somehow make it to trial anyways. I could accept that Japanese prosecutors are a bit better at filtering, but a 99.3% conviction rate does not seem right.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    Why not? You'd prefer the prosecutors to waste their time trying to prosecute cases where they're most likely to lose? Instead, they either drop those cases, or try to arrange some other settlement before getting to trial. There's many things seriously wrong with the Japanese judicial system, but this isn't one of them.
- mc32 4y ago
  One thing to note is they can detain you for up to 23 days without a charge (subject to extension) and during that time you may of may not be able to speak to a lawyer and during this time sometimes they get detainees to “confess”. Mr Ghosn got some concessions only because he had some influence. In the US it’s a bit different, prosecutors throw as many counts as they can in hopes the accused will plea-deal for a lesser charge. Not sure what’s worse.
timoth3y 4y ago
For reference the US federal government has a 99% conviction rate. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/11/only-2-of-federal-criminal-defendants-go-to-trial-and-most-who-do-are-found-guilty/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/11/only-2-of-f... == Edit 91.8% if you include the cases that are dropped.
MisterBastahrd 4y ago
This isn't really much different than the US federal prosecution rate. Prosecutors in these positions generally won't attempt to convict someone unless they know that they have an airtight case.
- btilly 4y ago
  I call BS. Thanks to how abusive the plea bargain process is, prosecutors routinely pursue questionable cases, and defendants regularly cave. See https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside-drug-test-sends-innocent-people-to-jail.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside... for verification of that many innocent people are railroaded into guilty pleas on very little evidence.
tiahura 4y ago
Wether the judge thinks the accused is innocent is largely irrelevant in the US system as well.
- ksherlock 4y ago
  JNOV - Judgement notwithstanding of verdict -- is a thing. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 29(c): (2) Ruling on the Motion. If the jury has returned a guilty verdict, the court may set aside the verdict and enter an acquittal. If the jury has failed to return a verdict, the court may enter a judgment of acquittal. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 50: (1) In General. If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may ... (B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.
  - tiahura 4y ago
    I qualified with largely. Rule 29 requires more than the judge disagreeing with the verdict. Basically the judge must find that there’s NO WAY a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty. But if the prosecution’s case was that weak, the judge probably would have granted the defendant’s Rule 29 motion at the close of the prosecution’s case.
- wahern 4y ago
  It's not irrelevant. What's most immediately relevant, however, is whether the judge thinks innocence is so clear that no reasonable jury could convict. In such a case the judge is obliged to declare a mistrial or enter an aquittal. The technical way to put this is that innocence is always presumed, and the judge has the final say over whether guilt has been adequately proven. It gets lost amidst a mountain of doctrine and procedure, but even in Common Law systems one of the principal functions of a trial, and the judicial office generally, is establishing the truth, just as in continental European systems. Trial procedure is primarily adversarial, but judges absolutely have the power to independently seek the truth. One of the most common ways this manifests in a jury trial is the judge directly posing questions to witnesses. (Judges don't habitually ask questions as merely posing questions could potentially prejudice a defendant--who may be, for example, strategically avoiding some subject matter--and especially in a jury trial judges must be careful to maintain the appearance of impartiality so as not to influence or lose the faith of juries.) Because in Common Law systems investigative and prosecutorial powers are typically held and executed by another branch of government (or at least another party, public or private), judicial discretion naturally tends to be confined to courtrooms. But historically, and today even in many rural areas with limited government services, judges' roles can be more expansive, fundamentally deriving from their function of establishing the truth. EDIT: A legal note on Federal Rules of Evidence 614 (Calling and Interrogation of Witnesses by Court) I put together many years ago for my Evidence class: https://25thandClement.com/~william/Evidence/614.pdf https://25thandClement.com/~william/Evidence/614.pdf For the broader principle at play, see footnote 2 citing the most eminent American scholar of Evidence, John Wigmore, as saying that courts have a duty to "to elicit the truth more fully"; and the statesman Edmund Burke arguing even more broadly that, "A Judge is not placed in that high situation merely as a passive instrument of parties: He has a duty of his own, independent of them, and that duty is to investigate the truth."
jasonhansel 4y ago
Even if that represents a difference from the US, it's irrelevant. It would do a lot of harm to the US-Japan relationship if the US let such a serious and blatant crime go unpunished. This sort of cross-border crime is exactly what the extradition process exists for.
metacritic12 4y ago
From an ethical perspective, it matters that the US criminal system treats prisoners inhumanely. Therefore, it is OK if foreign citizens in allied countries like Japan come in and break people like Bernie Madoff out. Especially if it's done not primarily based on ethics, but because the accused has paid large sums of money to do it.

From an ethical perspective, it matters that the Japanese criminal system has a 100% conviction rate and even the judge thinking the defendant is innocent won't result in an acquittal.

chollida1 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system_of_Japan#:~:text=Japan%20has%20a%20conviction%20rate,is%20different%20from%20other%20countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system_of_Jap.... Not really what most people would expect when you say 100% > According to them, Japanese prosecutors will prosecute only the very few cases in which they are most likely to be guilty and not many others.[2][3][4] According to Ryo Ogiso, a professor at Chuo University, prosecutors suspend prosecution for 60% of cases they receive, and end prosecution for the remaining 30% through a simplified judicial process. Only about 8% of cases are actually prosecuted, and this low prosecution rate is the reason for Japan's high conviction rate.[3][5]

cbracken 4y ago
Quoting from Wikipedia [1]: The conviction rate is 99.3%. By only stating this high conviction rate it is often misunderstood as too high—however, this high conviction rate drops significantly when accounting for the fact that Japanese prosecutors drop roughly half the cases they are given. If measured in the same way, the United States' conviction rate would be 99.8%. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate#Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate#Japan
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  Wow. I have now scrubbed this wrong fact from my brain. Thanks!
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
polishTar 4y ago
Speaking as a complete non-expert, I don't find that a satisfactory/comforting answer. Just a quick google search shows prosecutors in the US also selectively choose which cases to prosecute (it appears there are around 4x as many cases get dismissed than go all the way to a jury trial), but nonetheless there are many meritless cases that do somehow make it to trial anyways. I could accept that Japanese prosecutors are a bit better at filtering, but a 99.3% conviction rate does not seem right.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  Why not? You'd prefer the prosecutors to waste their time trying to prosecute cases where they're most likely to lose? Instead, they either drop those cases, or try to arrange some other settlement before getting to trial. There's many things seriously wrong with the Japanese judicial system, but this isn't one of them.
mc32 4y ago
One thing to note is they can detain you for up to 23 days without a charge (subject to extension) and during that time you may of may not be able to speak to a lawyer and during this time sometimes they get detainees to “confess”. Mr Ghosn got some concessions only because he had some influence. In the US it’s a bit different, prosecutors throw as many counts as they can in hopes the accused will plea-deal for a lesser charge. Not sure what’s worse.

timoth3y 4y ago

For reference the US federal government has a 99% conviction rate. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/11/only-2-of-federal-criminal-defendants-go-to-trial-and-most-who-do-are-found-guilty/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/11/only-2-of-f... == Edit 91.8% if you include the cases that are dropped.

MisterBastahrd 4y ago

This isn't really much different than the US federal prosecution rate. Prosecutors in these positions generally won't attempt to convict someone unless they know that they have an airtight case.

btilly 4y ago
I call BS. Thanks to how abusive the plea bargain process is, prosecutors routinely pursue questionable cases, and defendants regularly cave. See https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside-drug-test-sends-innocent-people-to-jail.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside... for verification of that many innocent people are railroaded into guilty pleas on very little evidence.

tiahura 4y ago

Wether the judge thinks the accused is innocent is largely irrelevant in the US system as well.

ksherlock 4y ago
JNOV - Judgement notwithstanding of verdict -- is a thing. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 29(c): (2) Ruling on the Motion. If the jury has returned a guilty verdict, the court may set aside the verdict and enter an acquittal. If the jury has failed to return a verdict, the court may enter a judgment of acquittal. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 50: (1) In General. If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may ... (B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.
- tiahura 4y ago
  I qualified with largely. Rule 29 requires more than the judge disagreeing with the verdict. Basically the judge must find that there’s NO WAY a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty. But if the prosecution’s case was that weak, the judge probably would have granted the defendant’s Rule 29 motion at the close of the prosecution’s case.
wahern 4y ago
It's not irrelevant. What's most immediately relevant, however, is whether the judge thinks innocence is so clear that no reasonable jury could convict. In such a case the judge is obliged to declare a mistrial or enter an aquittal. The technical way to put this is that innocence is always presumed, and the judge has the final say over whether guilt has been adequately proven. It gets lost amidst a mountain of doctrine and procedure, but even in Common Law systems one of the principal functions of a trial, and the judicial office generally, is establishing the truth, just as in continental European systems. Trial procedure is primarily adversarial, but judges absolutely have the power to independently seek the truth. One of the most common ways this manifests in a jury trial is the judge directly posing questions to witnesses. (Judges don't habitually ask questions as merely posing questions could potentially prejudice a defendant--who may be, for example, strategically avoiding some subject matter--and especially in a jury trial judges must be careful to maintain the appearance of impartiality so as not to influence or lose the faith of juries.) Because in Common Law systems investigative and prosecutorial powers are typically held and executed by another branch of government (or at least another party, public or private), judicial discretion naturally tends to be confined to courtrooms. But historically, and today even in many rural areas with limited government services, judges' roles can be more expansive, fundamentally deriving from their function of establishing the truth. EDIT: A legal note on Federal Rules of Evidence 614 (Calling and Interrogation of Witnesses by Court) I put together many years ago for my Evidence class: https://25thandClement.com/~william/Evidence/614.pdf https://25thandClement.com/~william/Evidence/614.pdf For the broader principle at play, see footnote 2 citing the most eminent American scholar of Evidence, John Wigmore, as saying that courts have a duty to "to elicit the truth more fully"; and the statesman Edmund Burke arguing even more broadly that, "A Judge is not placed in that high situation merely as a passive instrument of parties: He has a duty of his own, independent of them, and that duty is to investigate the truth."

jasonhansel 4y ago

Even if that represents a difference from the US, it's irrelevant. It would do a lot of harm to the US-Japan relationship if the US let such a serious and blatant crime go unpunished. This sort of cross-border crime is exactly what the extradition process exists for.

metacritic12 4y ago

From an ethical perspective, it matters that the US criminal system treats prisoners inhumanely. Therefore, it is OK if foreign citizens in allied countries like Japan come in and break people like Bernie Madoff out. Especially if it's done not primarily based on ethics, but because the accused has paid large sums of money to do it.