How Japan has almost eradicated gun crime
bbc.com
bbc.com
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.
Sounds a lot like how I hear it's done in the US, a la "plea bargains".
When fully half of your population walks away from one of the most important pillars of your society, you are screwed if you don't change.
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.
For 2012, the US Department of Justice reported a 93% conviction rate.
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 In 2013/2014, 32% of all completed cases were stayed or withdrawn, and 4% of cases were acquitted.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.
Source: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2015001/article/14226-...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape_in_the_United_Stat...
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...
[0]https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/26/neil-woods-u...
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12365667
[2]https://www.ft.com/content/987dddda-bbe2-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d...
[3]https://www.amazon.com/Ill-Fares-Land-Tony-Judt/dp/014311876...
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.
Slavery ended in Sweden in 1847[1] (153 years ago), so that can't be it.
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.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/01/06/national/media-n...
"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?”
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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
Formula:
1. Outrageously bold claim
2. Obviously ridiculous and nonsense claim of correlation
3. Things are rarely as simple as some few-word slogan.
It seems most modern democracies get by fine without civil wars.
Or: what, exactly, are you suggesting.
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.