Japan’s “Substitute Prisons”

INTERVIEWER  Japan has long relied on the daiyō kangoku, or “substitute prison,” system, whereby suspects are held for extended periods in police jail cells while awaiting trial instead of in a facility run by the Ministry of Justice, as stipulated by law. How do you view this situation with regard to Japan’s reputation for forced confessions?

MURAI  Some issues that have come under international scrutiny, like conditions inside jail cells and access to legal counsel, are gradually improving. This has led some legal experts to tacitly accept the daiyō kangoku system, but reforms have merely addressed the operation of detention centers and not the real problem of long-term detention.

MURAOKA  Defense lawyers carry some of the blame for not being more concerned about the plight of their clients. They seem indifferent to the harsh conditions as long as suspects are fed and cared for. However, critics overseas have pointed out the injustice of a system that forces detainees to remain in the custody of the same authorities prosecuting them. It’s a situation that breeds false convictions.

False Convictions and Retrials

INTERVIEWER  What aspects of the legal system lead to miscarriages of justice?

MURAI  One fundamental issue is that very few attorneys consider it worth their while to specialize in criminal defense. A major deterrent, particularly for individuals just entering the legal field, is the low renumeration. To illustrate, all the false-conviction cases I’ve worked on I did pro bono. Only a handful of lawyers have the level of commitment necessary to put financial concerns aside and take up the cause of a person who they feel was wrongly accused.

MURAOKA  There are a number ways wrongful convictions occur in Japan, but forced confessions are at the top of the list. There have been four prominent capital punishment cases where defendants were exonerated in retrials after it was proved that they were pressured to give a guilty plea while in custody. As technology improves, questions about the accuracy of earlier DNA testing and other forensic evidence is also being used as grounds for granting retrials.

However, a serious issue is that even if a judge orders a new trial, prosecutors are able to prevent a defendant from having the case heard by appealing the decision, and in some instances even convincing a higher court to reverse the judgement. Many legal experts have criticized this practice for subverting the authority of the bench and obstructing the legal rights of a person to a fair trial.

I strongly disagree with the practice. Courts don’t overturn earlier judgements on a whim, and I believe if a judge suspects there was a failure of justice and grants a retrial, the ruling must be respected so that justice can be served.

High Conviction Rate Hampers Justice

INTERVIEWER  Retrials are a necessary part of the legal system and protect innocent people from being wrongfully punished. However, many experts see Japan as being overly cautious about reopening cases.

MURAI  I’m afraid that most Japanese citizens don’t see it that way. I would wager that a significant slice of the population is displeased when they hear about a person being exonerated; as if they had duped the system and gotten away scot-free. Some of my legal colleagues even feel this way. The fact that so many people find it hard to accept that false convictions occur illustrates a fundamental ignorance about the legal function that retrials serve.

MURAOKA  The situation is exacerbated by judges who have unwavering faith in the infallibility of the bench. Once a decision has been passed down, it is exceedingly difficult for defendants to convince the court to grant a retrial. Unless new facts come to light that irrefutably raise a reasonable doubt, judges typically fall back on earlier evidence to decide whether to allow a new trial. Part of the bench’s reluctance can be attributed to Japan’s 99.9 percent conviction rate, which makes judges warry of pointing out potential mistakes by the prosecution.

What is really surprising is that in all the cases of convictions being overturned, not a single police officer, prosecutor, or judge involved has come forward to apologize for sending an innocent person to jail. There is a deeply engrained tendency to refuse to admit fault, even in the face of obvious misjustice.