Miscarriages (of justice)

A taxi driver in Japan is arrested for rape and attempted rape, he subsequently confesses to both crimes, is convicted after a brief trial and serves his three years in prison. Meanwhile, another man, arrested on rape charges, also confesses to the two crimes the first man (the taxi driver) was convicted for. He, too, goes to jail and serves his time.

The above is not a riddle of any sort nor is it the opening para to my new crime fiction paperback; it’s a recent instance and, (supposedly) not an uncommon one, of the Japanese judicial system at work - according to this week’s (19/02/07) Economist Magazine.

As a result of the above going to the press - ‘Jinen Nagase, Japan's justice minister, apologised for the wrongful arrest of the taxi driver and declared that an investigation would take place. After all, the suspect had an alibi, evidence that he could not have committed the crime and had denied vociferously having done so. But after the third day in detention without access to the outside world, he was persuaded to sign a confession.’

In Japan it turns out that you are 100% guilty until proven otherwise. This here is a 1st hand account from a gringo who had the misfortune of experiencing Japan's justice system right after his 36th B'day party: 'I ended up being interrogated for 12 hours straight and having to sign my own arrest warrant that night and spend the night in lock up. In Japan the police have 48 hours with which to decide what to do with suspects and of course they don’t do anything. Then they can hold you for 10 days to investigate the complaint and if still not resolved they can hold you for another 10 days. Of course they didn’t bother interviewing my friend who verified that I was telling the truth until Day 16. Day 19 meant they dropped the charges of assault and robbery, but I still had to handle an “accidental cause of bodily injury” charge which was fair enough. 23 days in the slammer, wow. Had to pay the guy damages to speed up the process and a 300,000 yen fine. Damages were 1.5 million yen, plus lawyers fees of 300,000 yen. So not a very cheap birthday party.' (you can read the above in detail over here)

And NO it’s not just in the east that these sort of incidents happen; for prosecutors to seek and win convictions against two defendants in a crime, knowing only one of them can be guilty, is dismaying, disgraceful and unpardonable, nevertheless it's not illegal, at least not according to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

A court upheld a 16-month increase in a defendant’s (Defendant A – Shaw) prison sentence for a 1995 restaurant robbery, based on the jury's conclusion that he held a gun to the restaurant manager's head. In a separate trial more than two years later, prosecuted by the same county district attorney's office, another jury found that a second participant in the robbery (Defendant B – Watts), was the one who held the gun to the manager's head, a finding that added 10 years to Watts’ sentence. That jury at the time was unaware of Shaw's verdict. Subsequently the appeals court said only one of the two men could have wielded the gun (No shit Sherlock!!!), but that no law prohibited prosecutors from making inconsistent arguments to different juries, as long as they don't falsify the evidence!!!

Shaw and Watts, were both given increased sentences for an action that only one could have done: pointing a gun at restaurant manager and telling her to open the safe during the $1,500 robbery of a restaurant in September 1995.

Shaw, tried first, was convicted and sentenced to 11 years and four months in prison, including 16 months for use of a gun. Prosecutors offered new eyewitness testimony at Watts' trial two years later, and he was convicted and sentenced to 15 years, including 10 years for gun use... You can read more about the above case and more here.

Pretty screwed up eh?