Why so little looting in Japan? It's not just about honesty. | Hacker News Reader

Why so little looting in Japan? It's not just about honesty.

slate.com

112 pointsPixelRobot55 comments

They're good at their jobs, too: The clearance rate for murder in 2010 was an unbelievable 98.2 percent, according to West—so unbelievable that some attribute it to underreporting.

High clearance rates don't mean police are good at their jobs. Police in Japan can hold a suspect for 23 days without charging him. During this period, they try to get a confession out, using techniques such as sleep deprivation. Furthermore, once you get to trial, it is usually with only a judge, not a jury. All levels are pushed to keep up this high conviction rate. So just because the rate is 98%, this doesn't mean justice was actually served at that rate.

Officers in Japan are evaluated on the basis of how many of their crimes are solved. Seemingly apparent murders that don't have strong leads aren't investigated as such - they're reclassified into categories like suicide or accidental death.

And doesn't Japan have an unusually high suicide rate (on paper)? Speaking as a library worker who used to spend plenty of time digging in such statistics...

How does the judge/jury distinction come into play? Is there empirical evidence that trials with juries have more accurate outcomes?

I truly know nothing about this but my gut feeling has always been that juries don’t improve trials and I never perceived that as a strange or uncommon view.

Judges face bureaucratic pressure to maintain high conviction rates. According to the following paper, it can have negative effects on a Judge's career if he appears to be lenient:

http://www.rasmusen.org/published/Rasmusen-01.JLS.jpncon.pdf

Only in a system where judges are elected, like the US. Many, if not most European countries (to discuss the examples I'm familiar with) appoint judges and have had a jury trial system until the beginning of the 20th century. It was abandoned after it was found to be easy to manipulate on a regular basis. Jury trials degenerated into character trials - prosecution would try to discredit the accused, and defense would try to paint him as a pillar of the community. Juries placed too much weight on their personal feeling towards the accused, and too less on what happened and what the evidence was.

We like to hope that the US system solved this problem, of course.

I believe only a few US states elect judges; they're usually appointed.

Even if a judge is appointed, there could still be public outrage over the perception of low conviction rates. This would cause another judge to be appointed. The same thing goes on with cabinet positions of all levels of government where the public demonstrates outrage.

I think the line of thought is that a jury is not as easily bought, harder to threaten, and better at ironing out the moral ambiguities that can be the failings of a single person.

However, a judge and no jury is certainly more expedient, neither is infallible in terms of their judgement. That is the reason for appeals.

"How does the judge/jury distinction come into play? Is there empirical evidence that trials with juries have more accurate outcomes?"

Juries may be less accurate and the OP's point still stands - there's a difference. I can easily imagine that juries tend to convict less often. That doesn't mean they're more accurate.

The line I've heard is that experienced lawyers would rather be tried by a judge if they were innocent, but a jury if they were guilty.

For a good insight into the japanese judiciary system, I recommend watching the movie Soredemo boku ha yattenai http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0794350/

High human capital, perhaps? I would hazard the educational/ cultural level of a japanese high school grad about equals that of an American state univ grad (I is one, so I can criticize). Nobody would be surprised SF State got hit by an earthquake and the students didn't loot. (The low educational and cultural level of the US is embarassing....)

I didn't down vote you, but I do disagree (disagree != downvote).

I live in a small town called Vero Beach, FL. Vero Beach is split in to two parts by the Intercoastal Waterway (locally known as the Indian River). The mainland portion of the city is lower than average in many regards. Most relevant to the situation at hand, we have a lower than average median-income, and the vast majority of our college grads move on to other cities. Our primary local industries are service and hospitality. If you were to come here from out of town, you would characterize many of the mainland residents as "rednecks". You see plenty of pick-up trucks sporting all manner of window decals. Of course, we also have a very large immigrant population due to the local citrus industry, so you also have lots of people walking the streets in their white t-shirts, dirty jeans, and large hats. About a 3.5 mile drive puts you in the heart of Gifford, FL; a sister city to Vero Beach, but could not be more different. Gifford's population is 57.43% black according to the 2000 census. Contrast this to 92.73% white in Vero Beach. By many outward appearances, this area is stuck in the early 1900s. Stereotypes abound in Vero Beach.

Interestingly, if you cross the bridge to the barrier island, you'll find another divide; the income divide. The barrier island has its own zip code (32963), which just happens to have the highest concentration of retired CEOs in the nation. When I did local IT consulting (computer repair), I had the opportunity to do work for the former CEO of Warner Lambert, the current CEO of Textron, and a retired board member for Chevron, among others. You can't throw a stone without hitting a former or acting CEO in 32963. There is ample opportunity for poorer residents across the river to make off with lots of expensive goods from homes just a few miles away during a catastrophe. Add to that the fact that pretty much all of the residents on the beach side aren't here during the summer, so their homes are unattended, guarded by only a small local police force that is vastly outnumbered and very, very busy during emergencies.

In 2004, we were struck with back-to-back hurricanes (within three weeks). Many people lost their homes to flooding and water intrusion (the roof failed). There was only passing major media coverage, because the storm came ashore in a relatively low-population area, and there weren't a lot of houses leveled, so it didn't make good news. I can assure you, a house does not have to be leveled to the ground in order to be uninhabitable. Once you've had 18" of river water in your house, you don't want to sleep there. Many went weeks without power, and gas (petrol) was unavailable for days, so while most families had supplies, there were plenty of people who couldn't last 10 days without electricity, gasoline, and food.

Through all of this, there was no mention of looting or increases in crime in Vero Beach. Quite the contrary. We had community run food banks and shelters that stayed open long after the worst had passed. Local landscape companies drove neighborhoods picking up debris without worrying about who will pay the bill, and sometimes it seemed like the whole town was actually grateful for what had happened. I've never felt a greater sense of community.

My point is that you don't need higher education in order to foster a culture that cares about people. To suggest otherwise is a dangerous cultural bias that infers elitism of the worst kind. Individuals derive their sense of attachment to their community in a variety of ways that often are not tied to any level of education or income.

So please, don't bother looking down your nose at us poor, uneducated, rednecks. We're not the ones in need of "some good learnin'" on the subject of community.

EDIT: Let me be more specific by separating concerns.

* I do agree that the overall response to the catastrophe in Japan is extremely honorable and is something we should strive for here in the US.

* I do agree that we lag behind in education and should strive to improve that.

* I strongly disagree that you should establish bias by correlating education, "lack of culture", and the predisposition to commit a crime.

* I strongly disagree that higher-education is the motivating factor behind the lack of looting in Japan.

* I strongly disagree that a lack of looting at a university has anything to do with their level of education, but more to do with the reasons they're there to become educated to begin with.

Probably too late to see this, but I (and my teachers) think of "culture" as basically "training". So if you can get a lot of great character training without ever being exposed to, say, Mozart, you would still be in my "high human capital" bin. In the US, I think usually character and education are correlated, mainly because being of high character opens up educational avenues for you (for which it is economical rational to pursue), while being a punk-ass closes off these doors.

There are lots of exceptions, of course; rural areas might be a case (I am rather fond of so called rednecks myself).

Also, I said that high school grads probably had the training of a mediocre college grad in the US -- I didnt say anything about high years of education in Japan being the cause of good behavior.

I'm not sure why you'd be downvoted for this observation. My week in Japan showed me that fast food employees had a higher level of competence and professionalism than at least a third of the people who I've encountered in my career.

(To say nothing of their US foodservice counterparts. I had an easier time special-ordering a cheeseburger in Kyoto than I would down the street from my home. And wtf, their standards for food are ridiculous. McDonald's, which I loathe, was fucking delicious there.)

What the hell is a "cultural level"?

How do I gain additional "culture"?

Culture is probably both the most difficult and the most important idea in social theory. I think of it as the amount of knowledge and habit you have internalized from the outside world; I internalized saying please and thank you, it is now part of "me." (Not so with elbows on the table). I also internalized punctuality, more or less. I have internalized a lot of books and what one more conventionally thinks of as "culture" (classical music, Russian novels, anything the French make).

One might internalize a predisposition to smooth over conflict, or one might internalize exactly the opposite and learn to start fights at the slightest hint of provocation; if you live in a violent society, the latter serves you well and might be necessary for basic survival, but if you are trying to make a career in an office the former is usually better.

I recommend building theaters or deploying Great Artists.

There are some wonders with empire wide effects that may be a cheaper way to improve culture. Look into those. One may argue RL Japan has a lot of those: the Shinto shrines, the temples, the castles.

Probably a better word for it is "civil society": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society

Civil society is more "structural", while what I mean is more "internal", though (of course) they both complement each other.

Speaking a language other than English, and knowing about a non-US culture.

Yes, that is sarcastic.

Downvote? How about a response?

> (The low educational and cultural level of the US is embarassing....)

doesn't really contribute anything.

Let me expand: The fact that we find it surprising that the Japanese don't loot says a good deal more about our own low standards for what to expect from an average citizen, given our wealth and power, than it does about the Japanese. And it doesn't put us in a good light either.

Hear hear.

Swedish citizen here and I can't really imagine any looting happening should something like this happen up here. I was not the least bit surprised that it happened in Haiti, seeing as how poor people already were there. Same thing with New Orleans.

These stories have the odor of propaganda to them.

I'd argue that there's no looting because refugees are penned up in shelters inland, and the coastal towns are pretty much gone.

In Katrina and Haiti, people were stuck in the immediate area of destruction, and didn't have anywhere to go. Remember the guy blogging from the datacenter in New Orleans during the Hurricane? The whole city broke down, there was nowhere to go. In Haiti, the whole place was barely functioning before the earthquake.

So little looting? Hate to burst your bubble, but the Japanese news is full of scammers pocketing money "for earthquake victims", people stealing from charity boxes, and looting.

Yes, looting. I can't find many news articles other than in Japanese, but here we go. Just use Google translate (http://translate.google.com/).

Since the earthquake, there were over 250 cases of looting in Sendai alone.

http://www.jiji.com/jc/eqa?g=eqa_date3&k=2011031900317

Here's a nice article that mentions people trying to break into ATMs right after the quake.

http://www.jiji.com/jc/eqa?g=eqa_date2&k=2011032000211

Here's just one about stealing from charity boxes. There were probably 4 or 5 articles today.

http://www.jiji.com/jc/eqa?g=eqa_date2&k=2011032000250

Stuff is happening, it's just not getting translated into your news.

While that is true, I think the looting cases there could be viewed as an exception, as compared to widespread looting that happens just after natural disaster anywhere else in the world.

Whether Japan is the ideal or not, society needs to reward productive, mutually beneficial action and discourage parasitic behavior. We couldn't even plant crops if other people could easily reap the results.

The US has been failing at that quite a bit in some areas of the economy. We encourage unwise risk taking, while shifting the consequences to those who produce. That is unscalable and unsustainable.

I wonder how many people returning lost goods actually claim the 5-20% they're entitled to. I lost my bag once (with my wallet in it). I went to the police box closest to the area where I'd lost it, and of course they had it. Someone had picked it up and turned it in. The officer I talked to explained to me that the finder was entitled to a percentage, but had checked a box on the form waiving the finder's fee.

And to be honest, I don't think I'd claim anything either if I turned in someone's wallet.

I work with a Japanese woman she's about 30 years-old and has been here in Canada for at least ten years (a guess) and I can confirm that she is polite and courteous to the extreme.

It's embarrassing to see the contrast of some of my fellow Canadian co-workers' manners they eat with their mouths open, talk with food in their mouth, suck their teeth, turn up the TV in the break room with others in there just because they want to watch TV, walk in front of elderly people - so infuriatingly self-centered.

Customers at work keep asking her about Japan and if her family was injured and she politely answers they're OK but day after day people keep asking as if they think they are the first to think to ask her the obvious instead of having some common sense and keep their mouths shut.

People think of Canadians as polite but Japan certainly holds the top spot for manners of all nations on this planet if all Japanese people are like my co-worker friend.

If we ever had a disaster here I know of at least one person who won't be opportunistic and rob me when I'm down.

There are disadvantages and advantages to politeness. A polite society tends to be more disconnected, less intimate and harder to make friends with in vs. a more intimate, but possibly a bit more "rude" society too:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/pacificnw/2005/0213/cover.h...

I agree on the politeness observation; I've been all over the world, but Japan is the only place where an employee at a Starbucks coffee kiosk thanked me three times for purchasing an espresso.

>"Why don't Japanese loot? Because it's not in their culture. How is that culture defined? An absence of looting."

immediately followed by:

>A better explanation may be structural factors: a robust system of laws that reinforce honesty, a strong police presence, and, ironically, active crime organizations.

how is that in any way different from the circular definition the writer just criticized?

which I think indicates the real problem with the 'culture' argument; it's not that it's circular, it's that it is vague, which is why the rest of the (detailed) article is actually quite informative.

One is circular, one proposes a social mechanism whereby looting will lead to negative consequences for the looter. I'm having a hard time seeing what you think is not different about those two things.

Those social mechanisms are a part of culture. I find it hard to conceive a definition of culture that does not include the systems of negative consequences that a society enforces.

The next time the entire state of Iowa floods, I want to see endless articles about why midwestern white people don't loot. Don't bother, here's the reason: Most people don't loot. The default "loot bit" on most people is firmly OFF.

In New Orleans, people loot. That also doesn't warrant a lot of analysis.

Police in Japan are said to beat confessions out of suspects, even false ones[0]

[0] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8290767.stm

I found it interesting that a lot of supermarkets in Japan lowered their prices following the earthquake/tsunami.

This is despite the fact that they were disincentivised to do so because obviously the potential for profit on foods and commodities is high after a natural disaster.

The bit about the response of criminal organizations is very interesting. I've heard odd rumors about Japanese career criminals, such as commonly going into the business fully expecting to go to jail. Can any one suggest books / docs on the subject? (Preferably non hollywood-ized).

The article cites Jake Adelstein and his book "Tokyo Vice", which is a good review of the Yakuza from a western perspective. He also contributes regularly at http://www.japansubculture.com/, which also features a lot of insight.

I've heard good things about "Tokyo Vice" by Jake Adelstein: http://amzn.com/0307475298

Thanks for the heads up, I'll give it a look.

I've been studying them for a few years now and will now offer my observations to those interested. The reason why there's no looting in Japan is a result of their uniquely homogeneous population combined with the unique culture that they have been forced to develop as a result of their perilous location, where there's a quake every 5 minutes on average, where tsunamis are so abundant they came up with the name 'tsunami' in the first place, and where there's no dearth of fires and typhoons.

To deal with this high probability of disaster, they have become ants(updated below). What's that? Ants live in a world where disasters many orders of magnitude more than an individual ant can handle, occur multiple times a day - colonies getting crushed by predators, flooded with water from human habitats, food they chance upon is multiple hundred times an individual ant's weight etc etc. To deal with this, they have evolved into the 'superorganism', which is a fancy word for saying every individual will put the community first and themselves second, which enables the whole colony to move and work as if it has -one and the same- mind. So if a colony gets destroyed, there's no looting or in-fighting in ant-colonies... they all move as if they possess the same mind, with the ants who were in-charge of foraging for food run out as a team to find the next suitable space for the colony while the ants in-charge of the colony' larvae protect it for the moment till the time is right to re-locate and so on.

Becoming a superorganism is the only way for the ants to deal with the catastrophe of the magnitude that they face everyday and still ensure the survival of the majority of the colony successfully - they have to put the colony first and the individual second. Unlike the simple minded ants, humans are far more intelligent, hence independent, than ants, making it harder for human societies to function with the kind of 'one-ness' the ant colonies show. But the Japanese, thanks to their largely homogeneous population, are the closest human equivalent to the superorganism.

Being in a country where they know that a disaster of such magnitude is inevitable, they have evolved into a culture of disaster recovery than disaster prevention -"It's not possible to prevent disasters, too numerous, too powerful. So let's focus on recovering from the disasters with the least cost to time, people and resources." They do this by being fast & efficient(you know where JIT, Kaizen come from) and function as if having the same mind (even their language has evolved to support this way of functioning with the strange third-person like way of speaking which I believe is called 気遣い, kidukai or consideration). By trying to become a superorganism, they achieve the same benefits that the ants do - incredibly fast and efficient disaster recovery, but they also show the same side-effects - no looting or in-fighting, fiercely protective of their homogeneity (again, their language has evolved to support this with something called Katakana where non-native words like 'Advanced Cartridge Slot' are turned into pure Japanese sounds - アドバンスカートリッジスロット which is pronounced as adobansukaatorijjisurotto, all native Japanese sounds), clearly visible patterns in the way they work, highly rigid social pecking order (Senpai+Kouhai, gekokujō), outliers will be punished and so on.

This unique culture is why they survived a 'surprise' nuclear attack (emphasis on surprise as it is many orders of magnitude easier to deal with something you know about than it is to deal with something that is happening for the first time in history) and came back to be who they are today. This is all made possible by their homogeneous population and such strategies will fall flat on its face anywhere outside of Japan.

Just my 2 cents.

update: My comparison with the ant-colonies is not meant to belittle the Japanese but to show how their community has evolved similar to the ant-colony superorganism. If tiger communities behaved like a superorganism I'd have used tigers. The focus of my comment is on the 'nature' of ants and not on their physical properties.

俺の国語より日本語上手いんだぜ。大好きっていうレヴェルで住むことじゃねよ。なんで好きな人たちの悪口言うわけ！

SInce I just downvoted you, and I hate downvotes without explanation, let me explain: The japanese are no more "ants" than, say, Southeast Asians. You may be correct in saying they have a society that values cooperation and that has developed norms and structures partly in response to common natural disasters. However you then slide into characterizing them as mere insects driven without the dignity of human choice, creativity, or spontaneity. And you come off sounding like a racist (though you are probably a good deal more complex in person).

Plus your post was way too long.

Tigers are not known for functioning as a superorganism, that's why I had to go with ants. See this video to know about the power of ants - Ants: Nature's Secret Power - Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwATgYaEku4

In your mind, perhaps ants are 'little' and 'mere insects' but in my mind I see only those parts of them that apply to the discussion at hand.

Let me elaborate.

I never said they are 'no more than ants'. When I said 'they are ants', I meant it to be an intro to the analogy of how their society's functioning has similarities to the superorganism that is the ant colony, thus showing the same behaviors of stronger community, less in-fighting, rigid society and protective nature, which enables them to efficiently handle disasters that would cripple any other normal society, just like how ants can handle their entire colony being destroyed only to rebuild it anew in 2 days.

I also never said anything about them lacking choice, creativity or spontaneity. You will note my references to concepts they have pioneered - JIT, Kaizen, Katakana. Sony was built amidst the ashes of the war in a dilapidated building. There's so many more I could write a book.

Racism is not about -ignoring- differences. Racism is the opposite - recognizing the differences and still treating people the same -despite- the differences. I treat everyone the same.

Comment is long. It's the result of years of observation that started when I was 23 and first came to know that in Japan, the average delay per train throughout the year is a mere 0.4 minutes, including delays caused by typhoons, earthquakes, snowfall, heavy rain, and other natural disasters. It boggled my mind and I set out to learn more about the people who could make this happen. That comment is not meant for everyone but only for those curious about what makes the Japanese do the things they are renowned for.

I can't believe this 19th Century analysis is getting upvotes.

> 俺の国語より日本語上手いんだぜ。大好きっていうレヴェルで住むことじゃねよ。なんで好きな人たちの悪口言うわけ！

KY.

Perhaps it's a myth?

See: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/03...

"The nail that stands out will be hammered down." -- Japanese Proverb

Also, Japan's population is very old...average age is 45. Older people take far less risks than young people.

One important note: most Americans are honest and some will go well out of their way to do the right thing. I think there's actually more of the latter (people going well out of their way to help others) in the U.S. than in many other countries. If you lose something in the U.S. and there's a way for a person who finds it to return it to you, your odds are well above 50% of getting it back. Possibly 90%. This number is pretty constant across racial and geographic lines. Oddly enough, measured honestly rates tend to be slightly lower at the socioeconomic top and bottom than in the middle. At the bottom, it's because of economic desperation. At the top, it's because people are so used to a sense of winning and entitlement that they enjoy "beating the system". I'd argue that, at all levels, class-based resentments are the reason for lower levels of honesty among Americans.

Japan has something much closer to a "middle-class society" or classlessness than we do. They have rich and poor, but not in the way we do, and economic status doesn't persist over generations as in the U.S. For example, the earthquake victims are in for a very difficult few years-- more difficult than most people in the industrialized world ever experience-- but they're not going to fall to the bottom of society because of this. In the U.S., they easily could. I know PhDs in the U.S. who end up in $7/hour retail jobs after developing health problems, losing their jobs, their insurance, and their savings.

The biggest difference in the U.S. is that we have a large, angry underclass that (justly) considers itself failed by society and hates it. We also have a tiny but invincible upper class that gets away with literal robbery and tends to set the moral pace in our society: kids in academic cheating scandals generally say they're just preparing for the real world, and they're more accurate than we'd like to admit. "Most people cheat" is false, but "most of society's biggest winners are cheaters" is true.

I think the contempt for society and ethical behavior that you see in a visible few Americans is based in social class, not anything else. Every society has poor people, but our underclass comprises 20-40 percent of the population. It has a mix of people who've fallen into it recently (from the disintegrated bottom of the middle class) and who are angry, and it has families that have been in it for tens of generations and have been nurturing grudges forever. Also, not all looters and ruffians are in this underclass, because there are a lot of opportunistic middle-class people who adopt "thug" culture for kicks. In the U.S., we enable cultural illnesses (mean-spirited conservatism, religious bigotry, lower-class "thug" culture) that other societies have the sense of marginalize.

A handful of broad claims, an abnormally high amount of data and decent writing, and discussions here ranging everywhere. So, because someone has to do it, and because I'm curious what his take on this is:

Reply on news.ycombinator.com