Japan is notably one of the safest countries in the world and holds one of the lowest crime rates. Japan also boasts a conviction rate that extraordinarily surpasses 99%. This basically translates to one thing: if you are prosecuted, then you will almost certainly be guilty.
But does that necessarily guarantee safety and justice?
What is it about Japan that makes it seem so safe? Some critics say the country’s lauded conviction rate hides some dark secrets.
The safest country in the world…?
We often hear Japan praised for being the “safest country in the world.” Visiting Westerners brag about being able to leave their doors unlocked. An unaccompanied cell phone or purse holding someone’s table at a coffee shop stirs a sensation of shock and awe. And we can’t imagine leaving our bicycles outside while we grab a meal with friends…unchained.
Is Japan really the safest country in the world? Or are other countries just so used to living amongst so much violence and hostility that the mere decrease of its presence shows up in our minds as the equivalent of the “total absence” of?
When asked on a popular Japanese blog, a lot of Japanese citizens gave their own opinions. Not surprisingly, one of the top reasons believed to account for this low crime rate is Japan’s strict immigration policy. Many stated that the lack of conflicting cultural views greatly decreased incidences of racially or religiously charged hate crimes. Another reason given was the lack of guns and people’s general aversion to violence. Some also cited the
9th place overall
But is Japan as safe as all that? The Think Tank Institute for Economics and Peace ranked 31 countries according to their “peace degree.” It evaluated statistics such as homicide rate, political terrorism, and the number of deaths due to civil war.
Japan didn’t rank first. It didn’t even make the top five. The 2018 Global World Peace Index ranks it at 9th place, with eight countries preceding it in safety. Iceland has held first place for a lengthy 11 years in a row. In a survey that ranked countries according to lowest crime rate in general, Japan was ranked number 10.
Top 10 is certainly a coveted position and indeed something to be proud of. However, it doesn’t quite live up to that rumor of being THE best. Yet somehow, for some reason, that is the image that repeatedly plays in many people’s minds. Why?
The legendary 99.9% prosecution rate
One of the biggest reasons for Japan’s safety is rigorous law enforcement – in particular, its impossibly high conviction rate of 99.9%. That’s basically every criminal, EVER, being convicted.
But how is that achievable? Is the Japanese police force really that good?
Well, one thing appears to be certain. With a rate that high, it seems plausible that once you’re prosecuted, you’ll almost certainly be found guilty. Even if you’re not.
A huge factor influencing whether or not a case will be brought to prosecution is whether or not it can be considered a “case “at all. Before being brought to court, an incident must first be classified as either an intentional crime or an accident. But what about in the event of a victim where the suspect is unknown?
This has become a touchy subject. Many incidents are classified as an “accident.” That’s happened even in some cases where victims’ bodies are found with stab wounds and bruises.
Why do victim’s families accept this?
But why do this? What about justice?
Strangely, this is hardly an offense to many members of a Japanese victim’s surviving family. In Japan, there can be a stigma attached to being a victim of a crime. Most in particular see the autopsy process as invasive and disrespectful to the body of the deceased. (A recent drama series in Japan called Unnatural, which centered on the work of an autopsy forensics unit, dealt with this aversion to autopsy in detail.) As a result, the families of many victims opt to skip an autopsy altogether.
Families will also allow an alternative cause of death to be stated, such as suicide, illness, or natural death. Police have even been suspected of putting pressure on doctors to sign a death certificate without an accurate cause of death.
Another reason is the shame associated with having the names of the victim and their families plastered all over the news. Finally, and unsurprisingly, is the desire for members of the justices system themselves to save face. Prosecutors pick and choose which cases go to trial. That means they often opt not to prosecute in a case in which the defendant’s guilt is not already guaranteed. It’s common for a case in Japan to be declared
To prosecute or not to prosecute
Almost all indictments in Japan lead to guilty verdicts. The careers of Japanese public prosecutors greatly depend on their success at securing a confession during interrogation. Thus, the suspect must be more than guilty. They need to cave in and admit it under pressure.
How are the public prosecutors so sure that the person they arrest is not just guilty but willing to confess?
The trick is in the decision of whether or not to prosecute at all. That falls into the hands of the public prosecutors.
In fact, determining whether or not someone is guilty is almost solely decided by these public prosecutors. The prosecutors will usually only pursue a case in which they are very confident, if not absolutely certain, that the suspect will be proven to be guilty. If that means coercing a confession, then so be it.
Few judges are willing to even consider the possibility of delivering an innocent verdict to a suspect. Even an incorrect guilty verdict is difficult, if not impossible, to reverse in court.
Guilty until proven guilty
This has, unfortunately and unsurprisingly, led to the wrongful prosecution of innocent victims. This occurs through inaccurate evidence or, more commonly, forced confession. Japan’s justice system has drawn suspicion for relying far too heavily on confessions in its decision-making process.
According to Article 38 of Japan’s Constitution, “no person shall be convicted or punished in cases where the only proof against the suspect is his/her own confession.” However, that hasn’t stopped interrogators from succeeding in securing such confessions from an innocent party before.
One example is the cyber terror incident of 2012. This case involved multiple death threats made online via anonymous methods and Trojan viruses by a hacker and cyber terrorist.
Using the Japanese justice system against itself
Yusuke Katayama, a former IT professional, led the Japanese police on a frightening game of cat-and-mouse. He used Trojan viruses to plant false evidence in the devices of four people, all of whom police arrested.
Out of the four arrested, two confessed. They had no involvement in the threats whatsoever. They simply couldn’t withstand the pressure of the interrogations anymore. These people understood that the 99.9% prosecution rate marked them as guilty regardless.
Later on, police arrested the hacker himself. However, cops then received another message via email claiming that Katayama himself was another “innocent victim” wrongfully arrested. Later on, police secured enough evidence to conclude that he was, in fact, the real hacker. Katayama had pre-timed that remote message in an attempt to clear his name and make himself appear innocent.
The press asked Katayama about his motive. Why did he frame innocent people? His response was eerie: to purposefully have the police prosecute the wrong people via confession. Once exposed as wrongful arrests, he believed police would have to release him, the real criminal. That would prove that the Japanese justice system was inadequate. It would reveal all the faults that allowed the system to prosecute people falsely in the first place.
Why do innocent people confess?
This begs the question. If those four were innocent, how did cops get two of them to confess to a crime they didn’t commit?
Some blame the interrogation methods used as being cruel and unfair, including the 23-day detention period without charges or bail. Suspects are kept in what some regard as unfair and inhumane conditions. That pushes them to admit their guilt, even in the case of innocence, just to get it over with. Some previously convicted innocent suspects have even said they had begun to doubt their own innocence. They started to believe that maybe they were somehow guilty after all.
There have been several such cases that have raised concerns around the Japanese justice system and interrogation process. One is the case of Aishima Shizuo, an engineer hounded by police on chemical weapons charges until his death. Another is the Ghosn case.
The Carlos Ghosn case and Japan’s “hostage justice”
On November 19, police arrested Ghosn on charges of misstating his salary on his annual financial reports over a period of five years. They charged that he’d withheld millions of dollars from Nissan’s financial filings.
This high-profile case seized the attention of citizens and officials alike from around the world. His long detention and treatment led to a widespread public outcry against Japan’s justice system. Critics, in particular, criticized how Japan treats victims before, during, and after charges.
Ghosn has been detained since November 19. Consistent with Japanese protocol, he was given 23 days of detention without charge. After that, he was formally re-arrested three times, extending his detention period. Police alleged that his “misuse of company funds” has caused harm to the company, calling for strict penalties following Nissan’s no-tolerance policy.
Ghosn denied the allegations, declaring that he had been “wrongly accused and unfairly detained based on meritless and unsubstantiated accusations.” He was ultimately held for 108 days. Courts routinely ruled against his request for earlier release. Prosecutors used one-month extension requests to delay his release even further. He was only allowed to meet with Japanese diplomats and his Japanese lawyer.
Eventually, Ghosn escaped Japan by hiding in a music equipment box and flying out of the country. He continues to rail against Japan’s justice system from his home in Lebanon.
Groundhog Day
Many countries have habeas corpus laws stating that suspects can only be held for 48-72 hours without charges. Japan’s lengthy detentions are a clear violation of this element of due process.
However, in Japan, extended detention is merely protocol. Not only can police hold suspects without charges for up to 23 days, as seen in the Ghosn case, but they can also re-arrest the suspect on new charges for another 23 days. A common tactic is for police to charge a suspect with a lesser crime at first—e.g., improper disposal of a body in a murder case. This allows them to charge the suspect with the more serious crime later on, resetting the clock.
This reset system puts stress on the victim, as they are held indefinitely in arguably harsh conditions. It also opens the door to a higher risk of police abuse and coerced confession.
This is a common prosecutorial tactic in Japan. Ghosn wasn’t the first to be held in this manner. Kagoike Yasunori and his wife, Junko, who were the center of a suspected scheme to obtain funds for their school on a fraudulent basis, were held for 10 months. Indeed, the Kagoikes reportedly sent Ghosn a fleece from Uniqlo to help him keep warm in his cell.
Unfortunately, not much has changed since the Ghosn case. In 2023, police arrested a man in Osaka and held him for 40 days on revenue pornography charges. They only released him after they found the real culprit.
It’s not clear what could force Japan to re-evaluate police detention rules. For now, people seem to regard it as a fair tradeoff for living in a relatively safe society. Until some reckoning occurs, innocent people will likely continue to get caught in the crosshairs.
