Could the above people please explain their disgust?
Sure, it is possible the daughter was murdered, or abused to the point of death, or died due to the parents' negligence. It's also possible the baby's life may somehow be salvaged if an ambulance was called. But none of that was proven in court, so mother's provable crime is limited to her burying an already dead human body. No lives, health, property or private rights were infringed.
Why is this not a candidate for a suspended sentence?
-5 ( +8 / -13 )
It's a mix of factors. She was no doubt coerced or pressured to a certain extent, but as important is that Japanese just don't get that instinctive "ick" that Caucasians tend to get when it comes to sex and children. They do feel something, but the "children" part is more an aggravating factor for some base offense rather than the "children" part being the core element.
In this case, the crime is voyeurism, for which there is no actual harm and any endangerment is abstract. A prison sentence (concrete harm) simply feels quite disproportionate a trade. The woman was thus no doubt in no hurry to trash her relationship or get someone imprisoned over this "minor" issue.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
Sven AsaiToday 12:23 pm JST
I don’t get it. So she is not even capable of fighting back with some karate moves or strikes, to withstand this idiot and show olympic class?
Part of the problem is that it is instinctive for most people to "respect authority", an instinct that is reinforced during our school years right along with such things as toilet training. It's thus not as easy as suggested by one on the sidelines (and thus one not having recognized the "authority" as such) to actually "de-register" the authority figure and start fighting back.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
@The Original Wing Today 01:14 pm JST
For example, if I drive my car through a red light and it causes an accident, I'll get a traffic ticket and a fine. But if I drive through a red light and nothing bad happens - I will still get a ticket and a fine.
Let me demonstrate one disadvantage of your idea - you seem to be assuming the penalty is locked to what is typical now for a consequence-less violation. What if we lock it to the higher end of the consequence scale? That will still be having the same punishment for the same action, but now you not only get multi-year prison for causing an accident but also if nothing happened and further nothing could have happened (it was night, and there were no cars within one kilometer).
0 ( +1 / -1 )
@The Original WingToday 12:17 pm JST
Bullying doesn't force anyone to take their own life. It can contribute to it, but the target of the bullying unquestionably has a choice regarding how they're going to react to it.
That's really ... fact sensitive, I'll say. For example, escape or fighting back is not necessarily an option for all victims of the bullied, and prolonged bullying can get to the point where clinical depression or other mental disorders start popping up. In this condition, the brain's biochemistry itself is in an abnormal state and at that point free will is limited or gone. The idea that we really are in complete control right up to the point we leap off the building is not compatible with modern medical science.
@kohakuebisuToday 10:13 am JST
Terrace House should have come out and told the public she had been ordered to act mean on the show. I get the impression that protecting the image of the show was more important than protecting Ms. Kimura.
Isn't that obvious? Do people of normal intelligence really think that actors on a show are acting in ways other than as instructed by a director, no matter how immersed they are while watching the show?
@Thomas TankToday 04:37 pm JST
He doesn't like her personality and said it is awful.
Also, if the actress had a brain, she should have been able to reason that those comments are likely more directed at her on-stage persona as designed by the director and storyboarding people. It might even be an encouragement, seeing that at least one viewer is clearly really getting into the show.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
@hooktrunk2Today 04:24 pm JST
Is one legally considered to be a criminal before their conviction?
For the purposes of the article involved, yes. Because it comes up a lot, I already prepared slides of from my textbook.
On page three, I show an example how it is not really that uncommon for real life statutes to not be as "presumption of innocence" in their wording as people would like.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
@ReynardFoxMar. 18 09:10 pm JST
The incidence of false rape charges is ridiculously low.
In a 2010 study of 136 reports of sexual assault investigated by a university police department, 8 (5.9%) were coded as false reports, 61 (44.9%) did not proceed to any prosecution or disciplinary action, 48 (35.3%) were referred for prosecution or disciplinary action, and 19 (13.9%) contained insufficient information to be coded.
It's one study, to be fair, but 5.9% is too high to be called ridiculously low when the ostensibly aggrieved (usually) female is invoking state power to deprive a man (usually) of liberty for years.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Sven AsaiToday 05:16 pm JST
Poor girlies, now they are even beaten half-dead until they consent in the app and then raped officially. What a counterproductive and completely stupid idea, such a procedure.
I think the idea behind the app is that it would clarify those situations without violence where the girl nevertheless insists she was raped. If she really was "beaten half-dead" and she gets to the hospital fast enough to document the marks, I would think it'll take priority over the consent they put in the app.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
@P. SmithToday 09:38 am JST
When someone uses a sharp object to “poke” another’s eye, the “poker” is imputed with the knowledge that it would cause grave bodily harm because a reasonable person would know “poking” another’s eye with a sharp object would cause grave bodily harm.
I don't know about the umbrellas you use. For mine, the tips have comparable cross sections to a finger rather than a point. Most people would not consider a finger to be a "sharp object". While it doesn't help Defendant the target is the eye, at least I would be willing to believe he did not intend injury while poking (as opposed to stabbing or impaling) away with a relatively blunt object.
BTW, as a matter of principle, the Defendant's Cognizance and Volition should have been individually assessed and proven as a separate element of the crime, not "imputed" based on a judge's imagination of a "reasonable man". I can, however, understand why a Common Law Jurisdiction would allow this inference. When the Interrogator's access to the Defendant is practically blocked by the Defense Attorney, getting the kind of information needed to actually prove Cognizance and Volition becomes more difficult, and a downgrade of substantive requirements by allowing these inferences becomes necessary to keep the judicial system going.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Given the way "rape"'s definition is constantly being expanded to meet the yips of feminists, perhaps this kind of app is the only practical way out of a bad situation.
6 ( +17 / -11 )
@P. SmithToday 07:10 am JST
Only Japanese “logic” allows a person who intentionally poked another in the eye with an umbrella to be sentenced for involuntarily causing bodily injury. I hate to be the one to bring reality into this situation, but when someone intentionally acts, that act is not involuntary.
Translations of legal issues are notoriously crappy and unreliable. As a matter of principle however, such a crime is imaginable. When the average person "pokes" another person, he is planning on causing him some discomfort, but he's probably not planning on injuring him, much less permanently. So it's intentional assault, but unintentional bodily injury, a.k.a. Assault Leading to Injury which IIRC gets wrapped into Injury, but probably helped to make a relatively low penalty considering he did end up permanently injuring someone.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
@rainydayToday 02:13 pm JST
This isn't an arbitrary reversal of anything, its the way ALL academic papers work. If an author is are to make an argument, the onus is on the author, being the one advancing that argument, to demonstrate its validity.
And I'll say he has done so. He has demonstrated, at least, that contracts are the norm. At that point, the presumption switches to the idea that there were contracts, which he further backed with at least some anecdotal evidence. What is utterly unreasonable is to insist on more proof than is reasonably available given how many years ago the events were. Basically, they are saying say a document from 1936 doesn't count, because the event happened in 1937, and despite providing no proof the legal situation changed between 1936 and 1937, they can insist it did, on the basis of ... nothing, really.
So who is not demonstrating the validity of their argument. Further, I'll note that thanks to the South Korean courts, the issue has been kicked out of history and back into the realm of law, and here, the plaintiffs, the ones advancing an argument for illegality, is clearly not Ramseyer. I think you might want to live up to your principles and demand a standard of proof sufficient that even if it would be you spitting out the money plus being denied the right to push your own position for your lifetime, you will accept.
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
@rainydayToday 12:32 pm JST
The onus is on him to demonstrate this, yet his only evidence is either anecdotal or drawn from completely different contexts (mainly studies of pre-war Japanese prostitution markets).
I think this arbitrary reversal of the burden of proof is the cause of many troubles. Isn't it the responsibility of the plaintiff to prove the illegality, rather than the defendant to prove legality? When you walk past someone on the street, do you presume the clothes on him were stolen, or do you presume he has legitimate ownership rights?
Ramseyer, as far as I can tell, didn't prove everything. We are something like 80 years past the event, which is to say we are well past any prescription periods in normal civil law or any demands to keep documents in administrative law. There's clearly no interest on the part of the "victim" to preserve any written contract (further, if they did next they'll say they were illiterate), and it is inexigible to expect any brothel owner of that period to have preserved any contracts which are now between useless pieces of paper and potential liabilities. He has proven however that a contract was the regulatory norm, and since it seems no one can show documents attesting a downgrading of this norm since Ramseyer's documents, a conclusion that the norm has either vanished or a large percentage are breaking the norm is the one requiring substantiation (but I have yet to see a Ramseyer attacker suggest any, because their warped sense of where the burden of proof is eliminates their sense there is a need to provide proof).
particularly in light of the overwhelming amount of evidence that large numbers of these women were either coerced or tricked into it
Thanks to the attackers bringing up particular cases, for example Osaki, we get a glimpse as to how this "overwhelming evidence" was gathered, and it is extremely unsatisfactory and I cannot imagine any of those attackers willing to accept a case against themselves to be resolved using such "evidentiary standards".
Osaki said that she agreed, that she knew (at least in broad terms) what a prostitute is, and that she did not ask any questions (nor did she even claim any reasons for waiving her chance to ask questions). Given that she is ten, I find it reasonable that she realizes how much 300 yen is in the context of their society (it's more than a typical soldier would earn in a year). At that point, the contract (and that a contract is in oral form does not negate its validity, especially since Osaki would later claim she can't read) is valid. She agreed she was well-fed and even received 100 yen worth of net income per month. Without being able to read the fine details of the agreement, it seems in broad terms the brothel owner lived up to the enforceable parts of his part of the deal. As for the rest of her claims, they are just that, claims. No evidence has been brought to substantiate them, and in my opinion no right finding court will find the allegations substantiated.
Ramseyer's attackers rely on all the negative claims. First, they questioned Osaki's civil capacity. By normal standards, Osaki is above 6-7, so she has the ability to form intention (意思能力) and at 10 even the ability to take civic responsibility (責任能力). Nevertheless, as a minor any contract she consents to may be voidable, so bringing her brother in on it (yet another attacked point) is legally correct to avoid future problems. Any ideas about making an exception for sexual activities came later and cannot be held against the brothel owner or the State of Japan.
Next, they try and use the point that Osaki will insist she didn't fully understand the nature of the work as an excuse to declare any contract void ab initio. Really? Never mind that Osaki didn't do anything to substantiate this claim or the idea that such a claim is reasonable. The idea that the brothel owner is responsible for Osaki's ignorance is legally ignominable. In recent years, there are administrative law requirements to increase the burden of explanation on certain parties (consumer protection laws being a prime example). But they are recent innovations, and in the absence of any such administrative law at the time, her agreement must be seen to be good.
They will also point to the never going down debt. However, Osaki simply provides no evidence that this debt is the fault of the brothel owner. For example, she does not even accuse the owner of manifestly unreasonable calculations in her expenses. An alternate reading of this is that the Osaki family debt is just so big that even 100 yen (a huge sum in those days) per month cannot catch up. A sad story, but one of no fault to the brothel owner.
And she escaped. Ramseyer's attackers pointed to that part of the story ending with one of them having to go back as proof that they are not "free". First, it is clear Ramseyer meant "free" in a physical sense, and indeed the regime at their brothel was clearly lax enough for the physical escape to happen. As far as legality is concern, Ramseyer is taking the position their contract is valid, and thus all three escapees actually are bound by legal obligations and the brothel owner is allowed to take reasonable measures to ensure performance of the obligation. Further, it must be pointed out that the brothel owner actually took no action, and everything claimed by Osaki is a product of her imagination. Not an unreasonable imagination, perhaps, but nevertheless one.
In short, the way Dudden and Co processed Osaki's case is simply abominable, and if this is representative of how the "overwhelming amount of evidence" was assembled, I can only say most of it should be deemed invalid.
-5 ( +5 / -10 )
@shiratori Today 05:36 pm JST
If it ai all about Taylors' state of mind, they shouldn't be arrested at all. They say- we liberated the oppressed. It is not a crime. They are heroes.
Even if they sincerely believed they were liberating the oppressed, it does not contradict their awareness, even purpose, that they are harboring a criminal and interfering with judicial process. At best that can be a justificatory factor they can place against an already completed Tabestand (definitional) first stage, and one with no chance of success.
As previously explained, the crimes of Ghosn are not bail skipping, but his acts as CEO. You might also consider why the law is carefully written so bail-skipping by itself is not a crime - it is due to the low exigibility (expectations) of the defendant (he can also lie in court). These low expectations do not apply to mercenaries like the Taylors so the law is written such that the principal does not incur criminal liability for jumping bail, but anyone that helps him will.
As for whether the definition is too broad, I suggest you look at every other thread in JapanToday's crime section. You will notice how almost all of the articles refer only to "arrest" rather than convictions, but almost all the discussion acts as if the arrested are guilty and often wish harsh consequences on them. Yeah, to the layman, a criminal is when he is arrested, not when he is convicted, and for that reason the formulation does not cause confusion in the layman. And for the guy clearly cutting things close, well, that's when he should get a lawyer. Or at least buy a frigging textbook that might tell him these things.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
therougouToday 05:58 pm JST
Ghosn fits neither of those. So I think the Taylors' point is valid.
It's valid. But it had its day in court, all the way in Showa 24 and it lost, with purposive interpretation (and really, how most people use the words unless they have a special sympathy) winning out. As a result, the article was not reworded. See the link I put up in the previous post - it's taught in the textbooks.
By the way, it seems in Showa 5 a rather broad interpretation was made on the terms 蔵匿 and 隠避, so there's no chance of evasion on that issue either.
5 ( +7 / -2 )
bokudaToday 02:46 pm JST
harboring a criminal is a crime.
This question has already been asked and answered in front of the court, Now jurisprudence is that the suspects and accused count.
6 ( +8 / -2 )
@browny1Today 12:10 pm JST
A low alert state, as befitting of a country that's still relatively safe and low-crime. You benefit from this low-alert state every time you use an airport in Japan, as you just get waved through or go through only a cursory examination without hassle. Or do you want your airport trips in Japan to represent the horror stories from the post-2001 TSA? That would probably stop the Ghosns.
As it is, thanks to Ghosn they are considering revising Article 97. In effect, Ghosn and the Taylors endangered a mercy measure with their selfishness.
-2 ( +7 / -9 )
@Robert CikkiToday 10:11 am JST
No, this is not true in here. You must prove yourself you're not guilty. We've had numerous cases like that in here. I remember, while still living in my homecountry, hearing of Shoji Sakurai.
If your "star" is someone who got clipped in 1967, then maybe things aren't so bad after all. Accidents do happen.
0 ( +6 / -6 )
daito_hakFeb. 28 04:33 pm JST
Shame on US for being such cowards. This is disgraceful. It’s highly doubtful that Japan would have done the same so easily for a Japanese citizen. I should recall the case of the three Japanese executives from Takata charged in US for the faulty airbags scandal which has cost the life of at least 26 people and has injured several hundred.
Oh, because what is at most a crime of negligence equates to an intentional crime. Let me also point out that the Americans acquitted the Captain after he plowed into a Japanese fishing boat. Speaking optimistically, you can say it shows the stringent standard of criminal negligence in the US. Speaking pessimistically, one may wonder whether such "stringent standards" will be extended to the Japanese executives.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
If they are not asking ALL students to certify this, then that is discrimination.
What's the point of asking the black haired students to certify? Since we are in Japan, it's very likely to be their natural color. Further, even if the hair is dyed, it is blending in, which is a choice that people should be allowed to make. Black is an indisputedably acceptable color in Japan, so there are no public interest or children interest grounds.
Anti-discrimination doesn't mean making those who clearly don't need to do work to do it just for the sake of "equity".
-14 ( +0 / -14 )
@smithinjapanToday 05:19 pm JST
So, all three committed more or less the same crimes, two are non-Japanese, one is Japanese; two they want to hang, one they dropped all charges... hmmm... wonder what the running theme is.
In essence, Saikawa is claiming he had reasonable motives plus was acting on legal advice from Kelly. Receiving legal advice and reasonable motives does not eliminate criminality and culpability. But it does reduce it and makes it easier for the prosecutor to go for Suspended Prosecution.
A problem with Anglo-Americans is that they confuse having some kind of defence with actually reaching the point of innocence. Let me try to approximate it this way. If in the American system you'll be thinking of reaching some kind of costly settlement with the regulators or Justice Department to avoid trial and possible conviction, in the Japanese system the closest equivalent to that is to throw yourself at the mercy of the prosecutor. With some luck, the result will be similar in that you avoid actual conviction.
-20 ( +2 / -22 )
@wanderlustToday 11:09 am JST
Whichever side the Court sides on, there is a need for the Supreme Court to step in on this case. What concerns me most is that we are not even talking similar cases, but really the same case brought up by different people. It is very bad for legal certainty for courts to be taking opposing stances on the issue. The Supreme Court will have to clarify the law and standards to be applied one way or another.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
@cleo Today 01:09 pm JST
Interesting. Mine definitely didn't - does it even happen with black hair? And would brown hair reach all the way to black for awhile? At least with relative commonality?
Anyway, she doesn't need beyond reasonable doubt. Unless the school had photographed the hair roots and they are indisputably black in the captures, she just needs to show it's more likely her hair was indeed brown at the hair checks.
If the school wants to argue after being shown evidence of brown hair that it was black only at the exact moment they were doing their hair checks, let them make the effort. It be possible, but could they make a convincing case it is likely?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
@wtfjapanFeb. 18 11:43 pm JST
how do you know that, because the school said so, girl stated her hair was naturally dark brown.
Given the presently available information, the only reason we have to believe the hair was brown is because the girl said so. Her teachers say different and let's face it there's a credibility gap between any teacher and a student, plus there were several of them. There's no sign she was able to submit any expert or other evidence her natural hair color is brown rather than black as asserted by her teachers - she doesn't need evidence at the time of her cutting, her present hair color or her hair color as a child should be enough to establish preponderance of evidence.
Further, her chosen point of contention is a hint not in her favor.
Most people don't care about how they won their court case. They just want tell their lawyers to find some way for them to win so they declare victory, get a payout and recover court costs. If girl's hair is provably brown, then she doesn't have to get into thickets like the constitutionality of hair regs. She just needs to say the regulations were misapplied in her particular case, and it has caused her great grief.
It's much more likely the court will invalidate a single, concrete application of an abstract act, or secondarily to read down the act (example: School rules that mandate black hair is not to be interpreted as binding on those with other natural hair colors) than get into the more contentious area of invalidating the entire abstract act.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
@Mr Kipling Today 05:42 pm JST
Private high school had a rule. Girl attends said school voluntarily agreeing to the rules.
One of many wrinkles is - did she? As Cleo's 05:11 pm JST points out, it's more likely unpleasantries like onerous rules were not detailed at the interview or another place ("contract negotiation" phase), but after she was enrolled (the contract was "signed") and it is sufficiently late it will be rather unpractical to back out.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
Just a disclaimer: I really think hair regs are Bull. If we must have hair regs, I'll say the hair reg should be on the lines of "You can choose your hair color as you enter the school. Even if it is Green or Purple. However, you will have to retain the hair color for all three years of your school life, so think hard."
Still, answers need to be made:
ClippetyClopToday 04:51 pm JST
What is this girl's natural hair colour? Which attorney is the onus on to prove it either way?
Since this is a civil case, the onus will likely be on the plaintiff to prove her hair is black to a preponderance of the evidence standard.
Also the judge claimed that “It cannot be said that the school was forcing [the girl] to dye her hair black,”, yet agrees that they left her with no other way to attend school unless she did so. Sounds quite forceful to me.
If you assume her hair is black, then she's being asked to remove the brown dye from her hair, not dyeing it black. Even if there is no way to get the hair black (for now) except to dye it, a one-time dye job until new black hair grows out is a lot less likely to damage the scalp and hair than to continuously dye new brown hair black for the pleasure of the school. Further, if we agree her hair was black, then even if she's trying out a new identity with brown hair, at least she used to have an identity with black hair, which makes it less damaging than if you force someone with brown hair her entire life to dye it black.
-7 ( +1 / -8 )
Extraditions have been refused before for various reasons, but it isn't going to happen this time. The State Department has already approved the extradition, and the courts have already reviewed and approved it as well. There's no change in the circumstances, no change in the fact solution, nothing to substantiate a change of direction at this point.
At this point, their struggling against the inevitable probably does nothing except to worsen their position. They've never really denied that they did it, and their entire defence is based on it being legal for them to do it (even though they know is neither legal nor moral in their homeland). Since it is hard to believe whoever will become their judge in Japan doesn't watch TV or read the papers, the result of these futile appeals is likely to be to worsen his impression of them and dent whatever last minute claim to being repentant they might have been able to offer.
And, really, a little suggestion to the usual suspects: If you want to help those two even a little bit, you might want to try another strategy other than shooting all those usual insults. It's just vaguely possible the Judge will swim past here, and if he does, I don't see how those usual comments will cause anything other than a quiet rage in him, which might just bleed through into the sentence. He's only human. Humans get harsher when their insititution has just been insulted.
9 ( +16 / -7 )
Harry_GattoToday 04:34 pm JST
This should not end like this. Assuming that the girl still has naturally dark brown hair then it is very easy to prove that the school was wrong and should be found guilty on appeal with the teachers involved being named.
One wonders whether the girl tried to arrange some kind of expert examination of her hair for submission to the court, and if not, why.
Let's be fair to the school: Just because she's a plaintiff doesn't mean she can't have overstated her case. It's not impossible that the school is correct that it's black at the roots but she thought she could get away with a "natural brown" color.
-16 ( +3 / -19 )
@ThonTaddeo Today 10:29 am JST
But when people see Japan's legal system doing things that would not be out of place in the PRC, people are going to criticize that.
In the PRC, Ghosn would have been "disappeared" (even Alibaba's Jack Ma disappeared for a bit recently). In Japan, at least we always know where he is (until he escaped). There's a gap between reasoned criticism and unthinking bashing. And there is a time when one should rightly concede one's poster boy isn't so much of a poster boy due to elements in his particular case.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
@ThonTaddeoToday 01:14 pm JST
Kazuaki, you can't possibly think that someone deserves something worse than deportation because of opinions expressed on an online forum.
Sure, but the question is whether a legal system that's 400 years behind the times, as suggested by Alan Harrison's "dragged back 400 years" will see things this way. For example, if Alan lived in the PRC, would he have made equivalent comments? Probably not because he'll be acutely aware of the possibility he'll be charged with "making quarrels and provoking trouble", Article 293 of their Criminal Code. Of course, one reason Alan lives in Japan and not in China may be because he doesn't want that risk. And that's fine. But then he should refrain from making comments that equivalate the two, or worse, may well put Japan behind China in this department.
1 ( +2 / -1 )