The conviction rate 99.9%: the Japanese bureaucratic totalitarianism may exceed Nazi Germany?

ライター：marvellous157さん（最終更新日時:2012/4/30）投稿日：2011/12/18 アドバイス受付中！

お役立ち度：
1点（5点満点中）
7人
閲覧数：383

印刷用のページを表示する

The conviction rate of the first instance in the Japanese criminal　court is 99.9% (According to the judicial statisticis in 2010, 61585 cases　were convicted and 79 cases were not convicted). It means that only one　case of a thousand cases indicted by the Japanese public prosecutors is not　convicted in the criminal court. If it were the same around the world, we would　not feel it so irrational. However, the conviction rates of the first instance　in the other criminal courts all over the world are quite different. Please　refer to the following data http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/marvellous157/15459469.html）.Therefore, the conviction rate of the first　instance in the Japanese criminal court must be regarded as historically and　logically abnormal. It is presumed that the conviction rate 99.9% may be beyond　even those of Nazi Germany rules by Hitler and the Soviet Union ruled by　Stalin. Whoever seriously examined the conviction rate, they would regard it as　definitely depending on dangerous totalitarianism. The administrative branch　and judicial branch would be monolithic without enough separation of powers.　The Japanese power system is characterized by the extreme concentration of vast　authority in the administrative branch. Then, even ministers democratically　erected seem to be just puppets controlled by administrative bureaucrats. In　this respect, Mr. Bernard who has worked as a registered foreign lawyer in　Japan refers to the abnormally high conviction rate and the collusion between　judges and public prosecutors (please refer to http://tsuigei.exblog.jp/12867606/ a French news program on TV”Ｚｏｎｅ　Ｉｎｔｅｒdｉｔe”).

Of course, Japan should have constitutionally adopted the　separation of three branches. In developed countries, the judicial branch,　administrative branch and legislative branch should have mutually been checked　and balanced to prevent the power concentration. However, in Japan, the　administrative branch rules and controls the judicial branch in fact and　decides what should be guilty or not. According to “Why Is the Japanese Conviction Rate So High?”, written by J. Mark Ramseyer (Harvard Law School) and Eric　Rasmusen (Indiana University) as follows:”Conviction　rates in Japan exceed 99 percent -- why? On the one hand, because Japanese　prosecutors are badly understaffed they may prosecute only their strongest　cases and present judges only with the most obviously guilty defendants. On　the other hand, because Japanese judges can be reassigned by the administrative　office of the courts if they rule in ways the office does not like, judges may　face biased career incentives to convict. Using data on the careers and opinions of 321 Japanese judges, we conclude that judges who acquit do indeed have worse careers following the acquittal. On closer examination, though, we find that the punished judges are not judges who acquitted on the ground that the prosecutors charged the wrong person. Rather, they are the judges who　acquitted for reasons of statutory or constitutional interpretation, often in　politically charged cases. Thus, the definite punishment of acquitting judges seems　unrelated to any pro-conviction bias at the judicial administrative offices,　and the high conviction rates probably reflect low prosecutorial budgets　instead.”?」（http://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwple/9907001.html）

By the way, the Japanese government grants the point “Japanese prosecutors are badly understaffed　they may prosecute only their strongest cases and present judges only with the　most obviously guilty defendants”. The Japanese　government and the public prosecutor’s office are proud　of their so-called superior prosecutors because the abnormally high conviction　rate becomes feasible thanks to their excellent capacity. Meanwhile, the　criminal court is only an institution which approves of their prosecutors’ indictments without almost any objection. That is to say,　prosecutors seem to monopolize the final decision of guilt in the criminal　procedure. The separation of three powers doesn’t　function at almost all at least between prosecutors and criminal judges.　This reality is quite similar to the relationship between　Hitler’s government and its criminal courts in　Nazi Germany. The separation of three powers between Hitler’s government (the administrative branch) and its criminal courts　(the judicial branch) in Nazi Germany malfunctions. In Judgment at Nuremberg,　the judges of Nazi Germany have monolithically testified that they have never　known about the exact information of Nazi and Hitler’s　atrocities. However, they were an important part of Nazi Germany. Finally, they　found convicted at Nuremberg.　Similarly, the criminal procedure of Japan may be extremely risky because a few error conviction cases of capital punishment have been found not guilty in a past few decades. I believe that a few cases of wrongly convicted defendants in the capital punishment might have been executed. Rationally speaking, the same number as that of exposed error conviction cases in the capital punishment might have probably been executed. I doubt if the government has never announced wrongly executed cases. Japanese bureaucrats get used to accept "a white bird" as "a black bird". Japanese get used to accept the conviction rate 99.9% as natural and rational because they are under mind control by the double-faced Japanese bureaucrats. מְנֵא מְנֵא, תְּקֵל וּפַרְסִין

このノートは役に立ちましたか？

役に立った！

お役立ち度：

1点（5点満点中）

7人が役に立つと評価しています。

この知恵ノートをブックマークする：

はてなブックマークへ投稿