As crime dries up, Japan’s police hunt for things to do
economist.com
economist.com
Then they came for the VPN Users, but I did not speak out — because I wasn't one.
Then they came for the JavaScript Disablers, — and there was no one left to speak for me.
;)
It is also slightly off topic. The original article talks about catching criminals, yours talk about conviction. The issue is about what constitutes rape in Japan, not the effectiveness of the Police.
There is still an interesting bit in the original article : "The hunt for things to do may sometimes be beneficial. The number of reported cases of children being abused at home has almost doubled since 2010, despite the declining birth rate. That suggests the police are increasingly intervening in the domestic sphere, which they used to avoid.". It means that we might see an improvement when it comes to domestic violence (which can include rape).
But there's still a lot of variation in how you get to that situation. E.g. how willing are the police to investigate cases that have a low chance of conviction? How willing are they to coerce confessions or fabricate evidence? Is sentencing and plea-bargaining designed to encourage early guilty pleas regardless of innocence? At trial, how willing are judges to lead juries towards a guilty verdict? These kind of issues are at play in every country's criminal justice system, but, for a modern democracy, Japan seems to have a particularly pervasive culture of police intimidation and coercion.
Quick example, you own a gun in your Florida home. Unbeknownst to you, your (idiot) cousin smokes a joint in the driveway before leaving and leaves joint on your table. Neighbors call police, they enter your home (based on smell) and find a gun and a joint. You are looking at 10 YEARS in federal jail [i] as a prohibited gun owner, a few months in county (for the joint), possibly some time in state prison for child endangerment (kids were home), and the CPS took your kids that day. IT DOES NOT MATTER if your are innocent or guilty you will do a plea deal. No jury for you. US prosecutors rely on extremely harsh possible sentences to bully innocent defendants into jail.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2...
If you believed the possible punishment were indeed proportional to the crime, would you still be outraged at plea bargaining? And would the same logic apply to any variance reduction strategy (like insurance) or just this one?
You mean if there was a fine of $1 per domain (per year?) as opposed to possible felony under CFAA to scrape public documents on the Internet? I don't want to get into moral nihilism or whatever we call it but what is a crime? Why are some acts criminal? What makes them different from a civil suit between two parties?
Sorry if I sound insane. I may be but the cause is just. Help abolish the CFAA https://www.eff.org/issues/cfaa
Because you don't get one of the fundamental constitutional rights our country was founded on: The right to a jury. Prosecutors should be forced to face a jury.
In a plea bargain, the state is recognizing your right to a trial; that’s why they can’t just give you the punishment directly! They are offering a reduced sentence in exchange for you waiving that right. At no point is the right not recognized, unless you think that’s what happens with guilty pleas too.
(Edited to provide explanation rather than funny but confusing skit.)
That effectively removes your right to a jury trial, particularly when the natural human tendency of a juror is to split the baby, i.e. if you get charged with 60 counts they're unlikely to find you "not guilty" on all 60 regardless of circumstances.
I agree with OP - if the crime isn't important enough to take to trial, it's not important enough to prosecute. Furthermore I would add judges should sanction prosecutors for overcharging. If I have $100k in cash I put into the bank in $5k increments that's one charge of Structuring with a potential five year sentence - I shouldn't be looking at twenty charges with a century in jail if I refuse the plea.
The problem is the incentives are set up such that the charges will not be reasonable. They can't be reasonable, since the state can't possibly afford to take more than a tiny percentage of cases to trial. Which sets up another incentive - the state must make an example out of people who demand a trial to encourage everyone else to take the plea.
To gozur88 if you see this, I am pretty worried about this too, and it seems like a huge violation of our rights that charges can be placed on individuals simply for leverage in a negotiation between the state and the individual. It is actually pretty absurd that we allow any kind of negotiation whatsoever in criminal courts because the usual principles of consent that are usually prerequisites to legally binding negotiations are absent. An individual is threatened with violence and then from that position are not on equal footing with the prosecution.
There's an increasing delay between when a comment is posted and when you can reply, based on the depth. The idea is to create a "cooldown" period for people who are upset. You would have been able to reply to my comment eventually.
Even on a too-crude statistical level we can see the problem: if an innocent person has a 20% chance of being convicted, but the offered plea bargain is 1 year and the maximum sentence is 10 years, innocent people will do better by pleading guilty. The "10 years" is a problem, but it's a consequence of wanting to drive plea bargains.
(The fundamental problem in this case is the 20% chance, but frankly no one seems to have any hope for a system that doesn't regularly convict innocents.)
This is why most societies allow guilty pleas in the first place!
A plea bargain is nothing but a guilty plea + certainty about the sentence. If you're okay with guilty pleas but not plea bargains, then you think the introduction of certainty in the sentence makes it somehow worse. That's hard to justify.
I reiterate that the focus on the "plea bargain" part of this whole thing seems misplaced. If anything, it's the part that makes sense; the problem is the high penalties and bad-faith charges, which is what should be penalized.
>if an innocent person has a 20% chance of being convicted, but the offered plea bargain is 1 year and the maximum sentence is 10 years, innocent people will do better by pleading guilty. The "10 years" is a problem, but it's a consequence of wanting to drive plea bargains.
>(The fundamental problem in this case is the 20% chance,
That sounds more like tilting against the windmill of "variance in extreme events". We also have the problem that there's a 1% chance of being in a car accident with tens of thousands of dollars in costs. In most cases, we shrug and say "insure it" -- i.e. trade a small probability of extreme loss for a guaranteed smaller one. Why do we see it as suddenly a problem when people do the same thing in the justice system?
Every legit example of it being a catastrophe turns out to draw its entire badness from some other already-bad part of the justice system, not the plea bargaining.
Horrifying. Ok. So slavery is back in the game. Hey, sign this and if you don't meet the requirements you are a slave -- you are "waiving that right". I am sure you are trolling.... right?
I think a good system would be to offer plea-bargains but only at a set percentage reduction of the original sentence, and only if the suspect isn't under some other form of pressure from the police. That would still encourage people who know the police have a very solid case against them to take the bargain, but not do much to encourage people who think they have a real shot at winning a trial by jury.
Will take my Florida chances :)
(This is also why so many wealthy individuals make it their state of residence, besides no state income tax)
For you to be caught with clause C the prosecutor just needs to prove the gun wasn't manufactured in your state. Example you own a glock pistol (popular), what you would find is fine print like: "Glocks for sale in the U.S. are made in Austria and assembled in Smyrna GA." Reading that as a defendant would be depressing since it extremely easy to prove - just getting a fax from the company would end it. Then if you look at ammunition, "9mm - 115 Grain FMJ - Tula - 500 Rounds" (as a popular example) you would see fine print such as: "TulAmmo is sourced from eastern countries like Russia and uses wartime-proven methods of manufacturing and material selection in order to make ammunition as affordable and practical as possible".
An attorney's website (i suppose he has experience): "If the firearm in question was manufactured in a state other than the state in which possession or receipt occurred, a jury may, but are not required to, find that it was transported across a state line." [i]
[i] http://dnadefense.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view...
In all honesty, I think federal prosecutors wont really care about (C) since proving it takes about 10 minutes with a fax machine and they have NEVER seen a case where the gun (and components) and bullets were manufactured in the same state. If they were manufactured in your state I would consider yourself one lucky [expletive].
That might be the problem then?
You'll find in this movie exactly what the parent describes, the apology culture as well as how difficult the system makes it for you once you've been accused of an offense.
>Although Japan's rate of homicide is low compared to many other advanced countries, Japan's rate of unexpected deaths including homicides, traffic accidents, industrial accidents, and suicides is near the median among the selected advanced industrial countries.
Solving each problem has costs, such as disruption to other people's lives - both involved parties and bystanders, but this disruption is seen as a necessary evil. Below a certain threshold of problem, solving problems becomes too expensive, and the cost is greater than the problem-removal benefit. These groups rarely dissolve when they are past this point, due in most cases to the ego of an individual human or small group.
This is a generalization of many concepts, but I've never been sure what to call it.
It's rare for a open ended committee or organisation without founding scope to vote for its own dissolution.
If it ever has to escalate to the police in that kind of culture, it's something really serious that the normal means of informal dealing and restitution won't work at all. And the mindset when that happens is dangerous, because the objective can be more "quickly restore harmony by any means necessary" than "find the guilty." Like the old chinese kung-fu movies where they would grab someone, torture him, then make him sign a confession. It's more important to resolve the situation to restore balance than disrupt that to right wrongs.
Again, this is real speculation, but Japanese are people too; they don't somehow possess a special human nature that removes all the nasty emotional impetus behind crime.
Japan has more than double the suicide rate than the UK, and noticeably higher than the US.
I wonder if some murders in Japan are written up as suicides in order to close the case quickly?
Plus I would would guess Japanese people are more likely to kill themselves than go on a murder spree of family members or coworkers, but that's just based on what I've seen as an outsider.
I'm don't think it's fair to make wild speculation like that without sources. It not like they haven't investigated the high (but also falling) suicide rate: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan
It's called culture, and it is causal.
At least I can infer from the headline that crime is very low in Japan. I wonder what they're doing that the rest of the world aren't
Correlation does not equal causation.
Obviously a big part of crime comes out of desperation (hunger) which might be going down as you say.
One of the reasons Japan's rate is so low is that they're ahead of other countries in the race to grow old; the vast majority of crime, and especially violent crime, is committed by young people.
That's... pretty impressive for a guy that old.
Or to be more precise: young males.
Edit: to clarify, I am saying that Japan does not have a gender ratio all that different from other countries - meaning that gender differences shed no light on its crime rates. It's an irrelevant statistic.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime#World...
There was just one fatal shooting in the whole of 2015
May 18th 2017 | TOKYO
THE stake-out lasted a week, but it paid off in the end. The tireless police of Kagoshima, a sleepy city in the far south of the country, watched the unlocked car day and night. It was parked outside a supermarket, and contained a case of malt beer. Finally, a passing middle-aged man decided to help himself. Five policemen instantly pounced, nabbing one of the city’s few remaining law-breakers.
Japan’s cluttered streets are not always pretty but they are remarkably safe. Crime rates have been falling for 13 years. The murder rate of 0.3 per 100,000 people is among the lowest in the world; in America it is almost 4 (see chart). A single gun slaying was recorded for the whole of 2015. Even yakuza gangsters, once a potent criminal force, have been weakened by tougher laws and old age.
https://i.imgur.com/QpYCERQ.png
Yet, far from being pensioned off, the police are growing in numbers: beat cops, known colloquially as omawari-san (Mr Walk-around), are a fixture in most neighbourhoods. Japan has over 259,000 uniformed officers—15,000 more than a decade ago, when crime rates were far higher. The ratio of officers to population is very high, especially in Tokyo, home to the world’s biggest metropolitan police force—a quarter bigger than the one protecting New York.
This means plenty of attention for crimes that would be considered too petty to investigate elsewhere, such as the theft of a bicycle or the possession of a tiny amount of drugs. One woman describes how five officers crowded into her cramped apartment after she reported her knickers being swiped from a clothesline. A small army of detectives was assigned last year to apprehend a group of 22 people who had been growing marijuana for their personal use only and smoking it in deserted rural spots.
In fact, as the police run out of things to do, they are becoming more inventive about what constitutes a crime, says Kanako Takayama of Kyoto University. In one recent case, she says, they arrested a group of people who had shared the cost of renting a car, deeming the arrangement an illegal taxi. Some prefectures have begun prosecuting people who ride their bicycles through red lights.
In 2015 a man was arrested for scribbling Adolf Hitler moustaches onto posters of Shinzo Abe, the prime minister. Ms Takayama says detectives have started appearing without permission on university campuses, to monitor “troublesome” students. One reason why police are going after cyclists may be to make up for the steady fall in driving offences. (Both drivers and cyclists can avoid fines by signing up for remedial training at certified driving schools, which are often staffed by retired officers, notes Colin Jones of Doshisha University.) Fifteen years ago police in Hokkaido, in Japan’s sparsely populated north, conspired with yakuza gangsters to smuggle guns into the country so they could meet quotas for finding them.
The hunt for things to do may sometimes be beneficial. The number of reported cases of children being abused at home has almost doubled since 2010, despite the declining birth rate. That suggests the police are increasingly intervening in the domestic sphere, which they used to avoid.
Even critics of Japan’s justice system accept that it gets a lot right. Rates of recidivism are low and a great deal of effort is made to keep young offenders out of the prison system; police work with parents to keep young people on the straight and narrow. Adults are incarcerated at a far lower rate than in most rich countries: 45 per 100,000, compared with 146 in Britain and 666 in the United States.
Yet the police are oddly inefficient. Even though there are so many officers and so few crimes, they solve less than 30% of them. Confessions, often made under duress, form the basis of most criminal prosecutions. The courts dismissed the case of the beer thief in Kagoshima, despite all the work that went into it. Japan is almost crime-free not thanks to the police, says Yoshihiro Yasuda, a campaigning lawyer, but because people police themselves.
This article appeared in the Asia section of the print edition under the headline "Petty officers"
The key to having such a degree of integration is to spread the good equally between social groups - there should not be first and second class. Everyone must be in the same class. Otherwise, the discriminated class will resent it and think of themselves as not part of the same society, so, why respect its rules? Example: black neighborhoods in NY.
The Japanese way of reducing crime - by reducing class difference and keeping everyone well connected in the social web. But I perceive the risk of reduced diversity, lack of creativity and innovation in that kind of system. Integration must be balanced by differentiation and vice-versa, if it is to work well.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/world/asia/japan-lonely-d...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burakumin
Caste-based discrimination was an important civil rights issue for most of the 20th century, and still has long standing effects on the organization and opportunities for people in Japanese society.
And of course there’s also Zainichi Koreans, long standing Chinese communities in places like Kanagawa, the urban rural divide, and countless more divisions that counter you’re simplistic description of Japan as a uniform society.
Despite there being many poor, segregated communities in the USA, crime is perpetrated by and happens in only a few select communities. In fact, many poor communities thrive because of segregation. In an integrated society, members of the poor communities would be marginalized due to language and cultural barriers because there would not be a support network of people from similar cultural backgrounds. (although the communities where crime is commonplace would benefit from integration by spreading the crime around to different communities instead of keeping it within the community)
Japanese culture and values across all groups are much more homogenous and conducive to a civilized society. People look down upon crimes and value hard work and education.
On the other hand, there are communities in the USA who have values that are not conducive to civilized society and that glorify crime and hedonism and look down on the educated. Coincidentally, these communities also disproportionately contain the perpetrators of crimes.
On the surface level, it appears that the value system of the disruptive groups are the problem because many segregated, poor groups can live in civilized peace. Segregation itself is not a problem.
Everything points to the malfunctioning culture and value system of specific groups in the USA. Integration may help in so much as it dilutes the toxicity of the culture and value system of these groups.
(1) overall wealthy (compared to the rest of the world)
(2) political stability, strong rule of law, low corruption
(3) no extreme differences between rich and poor, with the majority being 'middle class' (neither rich, nor poor).
(4) social redistribution and welfare system, reinforcing (3) by avoiding poverty traps (health issues, low education, debt spiral).
(5) near mono-culture whose norms and values value conformity and avoiding social friction ("the needs of the many ...")
(6) relative isolation to the rest of the world, very strict immigration laws, reinforcing (5)
I can see the same properties (somewhat differently, of course) and results in Norway or Switzerland.
All factors naturally reinforce each other. There's undoubtedly more, but I think those are the most important ones.
Japan has a Spartan welfare system:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/10/world/welfare-as-japan-kno...
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/06/16/editorials/s...
And the “stability” itself is the result of American intelligence services intervention in their political system(dating back to the occupation) to undermine any leftist challenge to conservative rule.
You can read about both circumstances in Tim Weiner’s book on the CIA, “Legacy of Ashes.”
Scholars say that the system in Japan almost never breeds dependence, and they suggest that the Japanese approach has emphasized the work ethic and the importance of family ties.
Caseworkers rigorously check applicants and drop by their homes regularly to make sure that they do not have banned luxuries like cars or air conditioners, and fraud seems extremely rare.
Japan does have two elements of a social welfare program that far surpass anything in the United States: universal medical care and comprehensive day care.
Everyone has access to doctors and hospitals at affordable prices, with the services free for the poor. And neighborhood nurseries throughout Japan provide excellent care for children from six months old to school age, if mothers work, for a modest fee that is waived for low-income families.
Only 1% Japanese births are to unwed mothers. That compares with 30% of USA.
''The Japanese have a tendency to regard it as extremely shameful to receive welfare, and so they are hesitant,'' said Toshio Hata, a senior welfare official in Kawasaki.
An applicant who owns a home is normally advised to sell it and use the proceeds until the money runs out -- and then to apply again. In May, a 96-year-old man was dropped from welfare because it came to light that he had $30,000 in savings. The caseworker told him to use that up and then reapply.
A welfare worker has a caseload of about 60 in Japan, and there is time for regular, unscheduled visits to recipients' homes. The caseworkers have great discretion in handling cases, as well as considerable moral authority in advising recipients what to do.
To be fair though in the middle of my trip the Akihabara massacre happened and visible police presence went way up after that.
My friend and I spoke the least of anyone in the group, and were actually in Akihabara at the time with no idea at all what was going on. We were there to return a camera, and we noted the place was CRAWLING with news crews. Didn’t figure it out until we got back to our friends who had been watching the news, terrified something had happened.
We were randomly passport checked before that happened however.
"The Upstart Gangs Filling the Yakuza Power Vacuum"