Criminal justice system of Japan

First, the institutions—police, government prosecutors' offices, courts, and correctional organs—maintain close and cooperative relations with each other, consulting frequently on how best to accomplish the shared goals of limiting and controlling crime.

Second, citizens are encouraged to assist in maintaining public order, and they participate extensively in crime prevention campaigns, apprehension of suspects, and offender rehabilitation programs.

[5][7][4] According to Keiichi Muraoka, a professor at Hakuoh University, the 60% suspension of prosecution in Japan is due to excessive fear that prosecutors will lose the case and ruin their reputation.

They also pointed out that the reformed system has reduced lengthy interrogations and other forms of aggressive evidence-gathering, making it more difficult to create false convictions.

Both codes were innovative in that they treated all citizens as equals, provided for centralized administration of criminal justice, and prohibited punishment by ex post facto law.

The Penal Code was substantially revised in 1907 to reflect the growing influence of German law in Japan, and the French practice of classifying offenses into three types was eliminated.

More important, where the old code had allowed very limited judicial discretion, the new one permitted the judge to apply a wide range of subjective factors in sentencing.

Under the Ministry of Justice's administration, these officials work under Supreme Court rules and are career civil servants who can be removed from office only for incompetence or impropriety.

Police are instructed by law to identify and counsel minors who appear likely to commit crimes, and they can refer juvenile offenders and non-offenders alike to child guidance centers to be treated on an outpatient basis.

Family courts are run in closed sessions, try juvenile offenders under special laws, and operate extensive probationary guidance programs.

The cases of young people between the ages of fourteen and twenty can, at the judgment of police, be sent to the public prosecutor for possible trial as adults before a judge under the general criminal law.

Within forty-eight hours after placing a suspect under detention, the police have to present their case before a prosecutor, who is then required to apprise the accused of the charges and of the right to counsel.

Under Article 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after weighing the offender's age, character, and environment, the circumstances and gravity of the crime, and the accused's rehabilitative potential, public action does not have to be instituted, but can be denied or suspended and ultimately dropped after a probationary period.

Because the investigation and disposition of a case can occur behind closed doors and the identity of an accused person who is not prosecuted is rarely made public, an offender can successfully reenter society and be rehabilitated under probationary status without the stigma of a criminal conviction.

A retrial can be granted if the convicted person or their legal representative shows reasonable doubt about the finalized verdict, such as clear evidence that past testimony or expert opinions in the trial were false.

During the inaugural case, the citizens relied on the professional judges to help ascertain a sentence for the verdict decided upon, but felt confident in their interpretation of the trial arguments presented by the prosecution and defense.

Some allege that international human rights are violated because there is no presumption of innocence, psychological torture is not prevented, and there are cases without access to counsel during interrogations.

[4] In Japan, mandatory audio and video recording of interrogations by police and prosecutors has been in place since the 21st century to prevent illegal outcomes such as forced confessions and to protect people from false accusations.

[24] As of 2017, prosecutors had implemented full audio and video recording of interrogations in 98.4% of serious cases subject to saiban-in trials that resulted in the death of a person or other serious consequences.

In these instances, judges issued not guilty verdicts based on technicalities, like statutes of limitation or constitutional arguments, which were later overturned by higher courts.

In contrast, when judges acquitted defendants due to insufficient evidence to prove they committed the alleged acts, they faced no professional repercussions.

As a result, the study concluded that while Japanese judges tend to be politically conservative in their legal interpretations, they are not biased when it comes to determining the facts of a case.

Because suspects are put through continuous interrogation that could last up to 23 days, as well as isolation from the outside world – including access to lawyers, the Japanese judiciary, and the public – it can be suggested that the court is well aware that confession of guilt can easily be forced.

During the 1970s, a series of reversals to death penalty cases brought attention to the fact that some accused, after intensive interrogation, had signed "as-yet-unwritten confessions", which were later actually filled in by investigating police officers.

[28] Currently, the Japanese Federation of Bar Associations is calling for the entire interrogation phase to be recorded to prevent similar incidents from occurring.

Proponents argue that without the credibility of confessions supported by electronic recordings, the lay judges may refuse to convict in a case when other offered evidence is weak.

The interrogation reports prepared by police and prosecutors and submitted to the trial courts often constitute the central evidence considered when weighing the guilt or innocence of the suspect.

[32] In the Shibushi Case [ja], 13 people were arrested and interrogated, but were found innocent in court after the presiding judge ruled that those who confessed did so "in despair while going through marathon questioning".

[35] The issue of the extremely high conviction rates were brought into international scrutiny once again after the former CEO of Nissan, Carlos Ghosn, was arrested in 2018 over allegations of false accounting.

[37] In a statement, Ghosn stated that he would "no longer be held hostage by a rigged Japanese justice system where guilt is presumed, discrimination is rampant and basic human rights are denied.