Those conviction rates are due to how they ignore the rights of defendants as you said and also how they browbeat suspects into confessing to doing something they didn't do. The accounts of that browbeating I've read/watched about are inhumane.
Their society has aspects to it that are suppressive and don't tolerate younger people questioning older people.
Violence through other means like knives seems to be increasing (correct me on that if I'm wrong).
The work hours they put force employees to go through is apparently taking it's toll on their society.
I'm predicting we'll see more issues in their society. I'd be glad to be wrong but they do have social issues to take care of just like most other countries.
Those conviction rates are due to how they ignore the rights of defendants as you said and also how they browbeat suspects into confessing to doing something they didn't do.
Sounds a lot like how I hear it's done in the US, a la "plea bargains".
Right, so I did a quick bit of tapping over here and found this:
The criminal justice system of Japan has a conviction rate that exceeds 99% (Note that it includes guilty plea cases.[1]), which has been attributed to low prosecutorial budgets impelling understaffed prosecutors to present judges with only the most obviously guilty defendants.[1]
Now, I'm no expect on the matter, perhaps neither are you.
However,I would appreciate more context than your comment provides because the way you've framed it makes it seem like an obviously bad thing, which, on closer inspect, may not be the case.
In 2013/2014, 63% of all cases completed in adult criminal court resulted in a finding of guilt. This proportion has remained relatively stable over the past ten years. In 2013/2014, 32% of all completed cases were stayed or withdrawn, and 4% of cases were acquitted. The remaining 1% of completed cases resulted in another type of decision, such as the accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.
Prison rape is kind of a meme in the United States, but apparently about 2% to 4% of inmates are sexually assaulted annually here[1]. I'd say that prison conditions are pretty horrible in the U.S. too.
To the US. Mental illness is extremely common in Japan due to have to maintain a kneeling posture for most waking hours for the duration of incarceration.
>"The response to violence is never violence, it's always to de-escalate it. Only six shots were fired by Japanese police nationwide [in 2015]," says journalist Anthony Berteaux. "What most Japanese police will do is get huge futons and essentially roll up a person who is being violent or drunk into a little burrito and carry them back to the station to calm them down."
How telling. Reminds me of the cop who quit the police force after witnessing drug crime escalation as a direct result of increased criminalisation[0][1]
There was another article on the FT that questioned why Japan has not fallen prey to far-right extreme populism[2]. The explanation is, of course, extremely nuanced but one thing that doesn't seem to be discussed much in mainstream media is the positives of having a highly homogeneous country.
Nations which are ethnically homogeneous are also typically culturally homogeneous and this is conducive for high levels of social trust. See nations like Sweden, Norway and Switzerland. The ideas of social trust are discussed in Ill Fares the Land by Tony Judt[3] (a book recommendation I picked up on here). Of course, it is not immediately constructive to say multicultural countries like the USA or UK should instigate mass deportation and ethnic purging, but it bothers me that it seems like even discussing the issue of ethnic homogeneity (not purging!!!) straddles the border of being taboo.
For instance, would it not be productive to discuss how to achieve high levels of social trust in a culturally colourful society? Nations like Singapore seem to have made some steady progress in this dimension...
> Nations which are ethnically homogeneous are also typically culturally homogeneous and this is conducive for high levels of social trust. See nations like Sweden, Norway and Switzerland.
I'm not sure you can say they're ethnically homogeneous. 15% of Swedish and 24% of Swiss residents are foreign born, for one.
I suspect that the difference between European countries and the US isn't that there's more homogeneity but that the various cultures and nations have been so close to each other for so long that they've just got over most of their problems. While the US has only been a civilised nation with its own identity and culture for a bit over 200 years, many European cultures and countries have been developing, warring, making peace and exchanging territory with each other for over a millenium.
The US is very very young and its people are still learning to accept each other and get along. Remember, slavery only ended 150 years ago and segregation only ended 60 years ago. It takes time to fully move on from things like that.
I wouldn't go as far as calling the people of the US savages but they certainly haven't learned how to get along as well as the Europeans do.
Slavery of local peoples (the people near Sweden) ended in 1335. Slavery of Africans ended in 1847. Unlike the US, Sweden doesn't appear to have a significant number of recent former slaves that need integrating, so I think my point still stands.
"Under current laws, if a low-level yakuza is caught with a gun and bullets that match, he’ll be charged with aggravated possession of firearms and will then face an average seven-year prison term. Simply firing a gun carries a penalty of three years to life. And for the “accomplice” reasons above, a yakuza boss may decide a death sentence is more appropriate if his thug miraculously gets released on bail before going to jail.
One mid-level yakuza boss told me, “Having a gun now is like having a time bomb. Do you think any sane person wants to keep one around the house?”
It's more complicated than the simplistic article suggests. For example, Japan has an exceedingly low crime rate, which is not explained by lack of guns.
I live in Romania, which according to this list[1] is number 4 of gun related deaths per capita (Japan is number 2).
The long lasting communist regime ensured very few people had access to guns. Decades passed since its collapse but the strict law regulations remained in place to this day.
Interestingly, Japan actually has a homicide rate on par with the US if you include suicides (with the delta between the Japanese and US rates being filled by our murder rate).
We all the know there is a solution to mass shooting in US. It's just that politicians and people fancy about gun way too much and like to keep a gun at hand for "safety"
>We all the know there is a solution to mass shooting in US.
No, "we" don't.
The article states "Ever since guns entered the country, Japan has always had strict gun laws" but the US already has guns everywhere. Getting all those guns back is no easy task.
Also, Japan is an island so I assume border control is easier.
Switzerland has mandatory military service required for all men where they are trained for gun usage. Also, they require permits and are allowed only if you're over 18yrs.
I don't know, people have plenty of weapons in the U.S., and the person who won the presidency by 3 million votes still didn't take office. Yet in the U.K. where few people have guns, the people voted for Brexit and they will get one. It sounds like gun ownership level is inversely proportional to democracy level to me.
Yup, that's basically the plan. It's going to be a messy four years. Get ready to get some coffee and milk stains out of your clothes. If there's one thing we know about Nazis, it's that they're obsessed with wearing snappy uniforms.
Well yes, but then if people own handguns, the police has automatic rifles. At least in the US they do abuse using the firearms, especially when the perpetrators are black.
There's no doubt that the state always has more power than individuals, but the point is that the state will not have more power than all the individuals put together.
I am in no way starting or trying to start a racewar. I am actually in accordance with the linked post. I am trying to further the conversation with "intellectual curiosity, and civil, substantive discussion." Denying the facts goes against these guidelines. I believe getting the above information out there would be to great benefit to the society as a whole, as also explained in my post.
