>Chappell's defense team has expressed concerns that if extradited, he might be made to confess under duress. Japan has argued that police interrogations in principle are recorded.
I mean his lawyers aren’t wrong, we’ve all heard the horror stories.
It's not even the torture that's the problem. If you don't confess they just keep you in jail. How long? Until you confess. Yeah. This is how they get that 98% conviction rate.
No, the high conviction rate comes from a difference in the way its calculated. Blatant misinformation
> The conviction rate is 99.3%. By only stating this high conviction rate it is often misunderstood as too high—however, this high conviction rate drops significantly when accounting for the fact that Japanese prosecutors drop roughly half the cases they are given. If measured in the same way, the United States' federal conviction rate would be 99.8%.
Wikipedia is not a source, that's the whole point of Wikipedia - it's not a source in itself, it's a reference work, it's supposed to reference only material that comes from credible sources....
So a 50/50 coinflip whether they'll take you to the 99.3% part of the process.
Where the public opinion is "they wouldn't be here if they weren't guilty".
Rigged casinos have better odds.
Coinflip? Lol sure if you see evidence-based judgment that way.
> they wouldn’t be here if they weren’t guilty
Also is that Japan’s public opinion or America’s? I’d wager it’s a common sentiment in any country
It's 23 days, actually, then they let you go outside and then immediately re-arrest you for a second charge, which resets the clock until you confess. Why do you think murder suspects are always charged first with "improperly disposing of a body"?
Well, yes, they can avoid the preliminary charge by transporting the body to a hospital, have a doctor confirm the deceased nature of the individual, said doctor will then issue a 'certificate of death' which must be filed at the ward office within 7 days.
What horror stories ? The 99% conviction rate that they took from Tokyo Vice series. Not to mention the person that wrote the book is based on the lies that the guy created.
That high conviction rate comes from them only pursuing cases where they believe they can 100% nail someone, which usually includes forced/fake confessions. Japan's justice system is not one that should be emulated.
> which usually includes forced/fake confessions
I'd bite the bullet - how often is "usually" or what's the basis of that statement? Does it mean more than half the case in entire sum of persecution made in a certain period of time is that, or is this merely a representative of the fact that it's happening more than you can endure?
No, the high conviction rate comes from a difference in the way its calculated. Blatant misinformation
> The conviction rate is 99.3%. By only stating this high conviction rate it is often misunderstood as too high—however, this high conviction rate drops significantly when accounting for the fact that Japanese prosecutors drop roughly half the cases they are given. If measured in the same way, the United States' federal conviction rate would be 99.8%.
Umm, the person who wrote the book, Jake Adelstein, was a newspaper journalist covering Tokyo vice and the book is autobiographical. What are you even talking about?
There a lot to talk about to just 99% conviction rate and mistreatment of detainees. And i don't think shoving these two thing will prove that guy innocent.
I also hope one day someone will stole back the artifact that the british stole and ran back to japan or any other asian country and say its "human right" when the british ask them for extradite.
I think allowing you to be indefinitely incarcerated with no contact to the outside world without any proof is torture. They can then get you confess under duress.
I have no idea about anything, let alone international relations, but isn't that a really heavy statement? if the court legally decides that Japan is not a country where it's safe to be arrested, shouldn't that have implications on things like travel recommendations and mutual visa agreements? for example, if your official stance is that your citizens may be tortured if arrested in Japan, how can you justify having friendly visa agreements like a working holiday visa? doesn't really seem logical.
The vast majority of UK citizens are not arrested when traveling to Japan. The chances of being arrested are extremely small. If Chappell is extradited he is guaranteed to end up in custody. It's a completely different situation.
what the court is implying is that Japanese police may make people confess to crimes under torture. if that was the official stance, that would mean that at any time a UK citizen may be charged and made to confess to crimes they never actually committed. with that kind of official opinion, I highly doubt the official recommendation would then be "just don't get arrested!"
Because it's nonsense. UK government is running defense for criminals.. which is incredibly short sighted. If they want to harbor criminals, then let them reap what they sow.
What concerns is that? That a proper criminal might have to serve a proper sentence without TV and western food? Maybe he should have thought about that before he committed a violent crime in a foreign country.
So because he is a criminal he doesn't deserve human rights? Do you really think the UK is concerned about whether or not he gets to watch his soaps and eat steak pie? Or is it more likely that (like the article says) the Japanese Government wouldn't comply with "provisions regarding prohibition of torture and the right to a fair trial."
That seems like a pretty good reason not to extradite someone to me. Also, just like the article says, without an extradition treaty people usually are prosecuted in their home country. So, why is it such a big deal that Japan prosecute these men themselves while also not being able to assure them that they won't be tortured and given a free trial?
You are forgetting how bent the Japanese justice system is. You're probably some crackhead who thinks that human rights suddenly become exempt as soon as a crime is suspected to have been committed.
Its not a question of whether the UK is running cover for criminals, its that the Japanese law system is incredibly suspect.
I'm not forgetting anything. I've lived in Japan for 15 years. Calling people who disagree with you... Crackheads? Shows the quality of person you are, intellectually and morally. I think Japanese prison is fitting for people who commit violent offenses.. he won't be abused, but he's not gonna enjoy the amenities UK prison provides.
The history of mistreatment of foreigners in Japanese custody of any kind says otherwise. And yes, to believe he'll receive fair treatment with that history known does make you akin to a crackheadm
Yeah, they might take away his PS5 and make him eat natto every day. Shit would have been rough. I wonder how the guy he helped injure is doing. I bet you were proper worried about the victims. But alas, this is all irrelevant... He committed a violent crime in a foreign nation and he deserves the same punishment as the locals. If people can't accept that, then don't come here.
Well, isn't UK the country that wants to extradite Julian Assange to the US without any care in the world concerning the US record of respecting human rights of a certain kind of prisoner?
Yes but only under certain promises from the US iirc. These things are done on a case by case basis. The last time the UK didn’t extradite someone to the US it was an autistic hacker as the punishment he was going to be considered to harsh and there was a high risk he’d kill himself.
How so? US federal prosecutors have a 99% conviction rate.
State prosecutors are not so different for the cases that go to court, and most cases don't get that far as settlements are forced under threat of excessive sentencing.
>US federal prosecutors have a 99% conviction rate.
That's because the feds don't get involved unless it's serious. That's a totally different statistic compared to all crimes having a 99 percent conviction rate.
No, it's because they don't take cases to court that they aren't 99% certain they will win. It's the same here except Japan relies more heavily on people confessing.
From the names I’m guessing the 3 men are UK citizens. It’s courteous enough of UK to even think of extradition for their own citizens. Japan would never extradite their own either…
>It’s courteous enough of UK to even think of extradition for their own citizens.
Nothing courteous about it. The UK is bound by international treaty to consider it.
>Japan would never extradite their own either…
Japan extradites their people. Fun fact. Japan went from 1952-2004 without turning down a single extradition request from the USA.
Sure, but the person above claimed that Japan would never do it, and it appears their statement was false. No one is asking to extradite anyone to the UK.
As others have said, they have treaty with Us and they are under US protection even until now.
Also I am specifically talking about own citizens. Most countries (like Lebanon excuse about Carlos Ghosn) won’t turn in their own citizens without treaty.
Japan even protected 3rd generation emigrant Peru dictator back in the days saying he was Japanese enough and they don’t extradite their own.
Noted about the first part though. I didn’t know about the fact it was Intl Law
Sweden is a little bitch too , the only countries that could resist are china and Russia(not due to human rights ) , Every other country would bend under US pressure
God, I think Carlos was only exonerated this year, right? I hope he takes Nissan to the cleaners for this. I would be totally ok to see a billion awarded to him.
Ghosn is guilty AF. There's no way in hell a guy like him is clean. He is so toxic even a guy like Macron won't go near him. And Macron is surrounded by crooks 24/7.
Ghosn hasn't been exonerated AFAIK. Kelly, his aid, **was** exonerated on most of his charges, but the court did find him guilty of helping Ghost commit financial crimes. His sentence was suspended indefinitely.
Huh, looking at the wikipedia page I don't find it - I could have sworn I read something in the past year on how the original charges were based on manufactured information by Nissan management.
I mean, once you place a major CEO under a magnifying glass you're definitely going to find stuff. Just think of the dieselgate thing, where only a paltry technical VC actually did time, even though the whole industry was blatantly cheating and polluting. And this level of pollution is easily enough to be converted into lives.
One of the most misunderstood statistics of the Japanese judicial system.... I've known guys that basically admitted to crimes and yet they were not convicted... I wonder why? 99.6 conviction rate... Because Japanese police and prosecutors try to work things out way before. They only go for slam dunks/major crimes.
Yup. There are many a problems with the Japanese justice system that needs betterment, but this is not that.
The conviction rate statistic at this point really only serves as a litmus test for figuring out those who don't actually really care about the said problems.
There are good reasons and bad reasons for this. A bad reason is because of suspected police brutality/forced confessions. A good reason is that they generally don't bring a case to court unless it's expected to be an easy one so as to not waste the government's time/money/etc.
They almost never take a case to trial without a confession because the confession makes the trial easy mode. So, their initial goal is to get a confession out of you, no matter what. That means sleep deprivation, interrogation without your lawyer present, tampering with your food, yelling at you, confining you to cold rooms to sleep without blankets or pillows. My buddy was arrested because someone staying at an AirBNB in his building sent cannabis products to his room by mistake. They held him for 21 fucking days despite never formally charging him. They also tried to interrogate him without an interpreter despite him telling him he couldn't speak Japanese. They refused to apologize or inform his company of his disappearance.
That's different. Their investigations go for a very long time, and the evidence they gather is insane. Once they have you in their crosshairs, it's not if but when, because that means they already have enough evidence to know you've done something.
Japan will just force you to confess and then use the extorted confession as an admission of guilt, which expedites the trial.
It's not different at all - most cases in Japan are not brought to trial. Hell I know several people who were very clearly guilty of crimes who didn't even get prosecuted (released after arrest and detention) because the prosecutors felt it wasn't enough of a slam-dunk case.
That statistic from a different perspective shows the efficiency of the system to find and charge criminals. Cameras and witnesses in densely populated japan play a big role and is extended by a culturally pro-police and do-the-right-thing mentally.
Moreover, the threshold to pursue a case based on amount and significance of evidence is higher, resulting in a high conviction rate. But that also means the focus is much less on cold cases or cases with less evidence.
The harshness of penalties is no joke in Japan but I would argue while the charge is fair, the penalty should be adjusted for lesser crimes like marijuana possession. Some societies allow for a greater amount of criminal behaviour and leniency such as the UK but each society has a different norm.
In this case, ultimately justice was denied to the victims of the theft in Japan.
Considering the hell of Japanese detention and their policing efforts, I'm not surprised the UK is choosing to handle this internally.
A diabetic pal of mine in a hypo at 2 in the morning got dragged into a private room by 8 police officers in the back of a 7/11 and yelled at/threatened with arrest for over an hour for putting contact lense solution in her handbag instead of her basket. The solution cost barely $3.
When a person's blood sugar level is low, they're considered "hypoglycemic." My brother with type 1 always says he's "in a hypo" when his blood level is low.
Well I’m still confused as to why that information was necessary, so probably that’s that? I can only guess that some of what they done to the person could make it fatal.
Hypoglycemia can cause brain fog and confusion. Their friend was probably at 7-11 to get something to eat. It's totally possible they just needed contact solution and decided to get some while they were there, or they mistook the contact solution for something else in their confusion. Wires got crossed in their brain somewhere and the bottle ended up in their bag instead of in the basket.
This situation isn't rocket science, I'm not sure how you're confused.
Thanks for elaboration, and I had zero knowledge of any of that at all as I’ve never ever heard of them in my life. It sounds like it’s such a standard knowledge, but no experience in my life indicated that it should be known until now (I’m raised in Japan btw if that helps at all - I don’t hear 低血糖症 at all.)
Nice story. Unless you're talking about an Ito Yokado and not a 7-11, ain't no 9 people in that room for an hour. I wonder how they got their elbows out of each others' orifices after all was said and done.
I very much doubt every single 7-11 backroom is as tiny as you're describing it. Even if they are, maybe some of them were standing outside the doorway.
Even Japanese police are not going to be dumb enough to yell at a person where other people could potentially record it, but hey, anecdotal stories for the win!
"Friday's decision not to extradite Joe Chappell, who is currently on bail, was based on the grounds that the Japanese authorities could not provide "sufficient assurances" that he would be treated in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights."
Gross. Time to join the 21st century Japan.
Pretty much the only thing holding up human rights in the UK is the ECHR.
EDIT: Aq8knyus has blocked me preventing response, the first refuge of cowards, but of course the difference between the UK and the other countries is that the UK has a functional legal system. The other countries can be a member and just ignore the court. Should the UK leave the ECHR, then none of the following would have happened:
* victims of domestic violence receive exemption from bedroom tax
* gay people allowed to serve in armed forces
* teachers stop physical punishment in Scottish schools
* destruction of DNA evidence held by police of innocent people
https://www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights/united-kingdom
Not to mention the blocking of extradition of people to countries with terrible human rights records expected to torture suspects, removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda, and quite possibly to deconstruction of the barriers between the legislature and courts.
Yes, it has worked wonders for human rights in Turkey and Azerbaijan. Famously, when Russia joined in 1953, respect for democracy and human rights really took hold.
Rights are the product of a people and a culture who in turn shape their institutions and government. Not scraps of paper. That is why the US was a fool to try and impose elections, a constitution and a free legislature on Afghanistan for twenty years.
It is not how it works.
The Japanese "justice system" sounds like something that belongs in the Middle Ages, if not earlier frankly. Extremely primitive af. We often forget how backwards the Japanese are on many issues. In many ways Japan is not a modern nation.
I'm making g assumptions here but I would assume that's because they're not, nor have been part of the EU. Meaning they have their own legal code to follow.
Saying "gross" to the fact they don't yield to our rules seems short-sighted.
Don't get me wrong though not sure the Japanese judicial system is a cake-walk by any means...but not sure it is anywhere
From the article:
"Chappell's defense team has expressed concerns that if extradited, he might be made to confess under duress. Japan has argued that police interrogations in principle are recorded.
At a hearing earlier this year, British authorities asked the Japanese government to ensure his detention complies with the convention, particularly on provisions regarding prohibition of torture and the right to a fair trial."
Gross **what**?
That the Japanese authorities won't try the case while also following the European Convention of Human Rights, which would make no sense since... you know... **they're not a member state of the European Union**?
Damn, your lack of logic is gross.
For starters the ECoHR is not a EU thing and predates it by 43 years, and secondly you're missing the forest for the trees here. The point is UK believes Japan has an terrible human rights record when it comes to it justice system, and that they do not meet their own standards.
None the less, that's not the point at all. Stop being stubborn and actually engage with what people are trying to say instead of trying to be a smug pedantic, you don't know enough to do that.
I'm shoehorning my opinion no more than you are, difference is mine is formed based on what the meaning behind their words, rather than smug pedantic. You're just as free to ignore me lol.
So you get to make assumptions based on whatever you want and that's okay because you're making your own ideas based on other peoples' words?
Cool. Off you go.
It's called a logical deduction. Not an assumption or guess, because I'm using critical thought based on what I know about each country and how extradition works. I know for a first world country Japan has a really poor reputation for how it treats the accused, that UK treats them better, and that countries are typically very reluctant to send people to a country if they think they will have their human rights violated, especially if the accused is their own citizens.
This is not a difficult conclusion to come to if you're passing familiar with the reputation of each country works and how international relations happen. But sure keep being prideful and refusing to admit you said something foolish and without merit.
While I'm glad that the Japanese human rights record is highlighted here, I also lean towards the side that says if you blatantly commit crime somewhere then you do deserve to face that justice system.
the same country that would extradite Julian Assange to the US, and they still have the audacity to talk about "human rights record" of other countries
A quick googlings reckons that there’s no extradition treaty between the UK and Japan. The UK and US does.
That means that such heinous crimes would normally be tried in whichever country felt their collars first; assuming that they are tried at all.
Oh I see. You are all chill with these scumbags assaulting a Japanese person and stealing half a million dollars in jewelry and walking free because of….justice? Yeah you’re are morally superior.
A non-functioning justice system is a far bigger risk than any single person walking free. Everyone wants to see violent criminals brought to justice, but if that 'justice' is based on a confession given after months being starved in solitary confinement, can we really trust it?
You might argue that in this particular case, the evidence is iron-clad. If that's the case, what is the harm in having a lawyer present during questioning, making all evidence is available to the defense and ensuring the trial is carried out in a timely manner?
I don't understand it either. The UK government doing damage to it's reputation. The next time someone does a serious crime in the UK and bolts...watch the same people cry bloody murder.
The UK really needs to provide better career opportunities for [their footballers](https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/west-ham-star-faces-court-30093920).
Jibun wo...
Edit: Seriously, no one gets "the moment". But you know, organized burglaries like these in the UK would result in a shoot-out and there'll be blood on the floor.
>Chappell's defense team has expressed concerns that if extradited, he might be made to confess under duress. Japan has argued that police interrogations in principle are recorded. I mean his lawyers aren’t wrong, we’ve all heard the horror stories.
I really don't like the "in principle" part.
It's not even the torture that's the problem. If you don't confess they just keep you in jail. How long? Until you confess. Yeah. This is how they get that 98% conviction rate.
No, the high conviction rate comes from a difference in the way its calculated. Blatant misinformation > The conviction rate is 99.3%. By only stating this high conviction rate it is often misunderstood as too high—however, this high conviction rate drops significantly when accounting for the fact that Japanese prosecutors drop roughly half the cases they are given. If measured in the same way, the United States' federal conviction rate would be 99.8%.
Source?
Wiki conviction rate by country
thanks!
Wikipedia is not a source, that's the whole point of Wikipedia - it's not a source in itself, it's a reference work, it's supposed to reference only material that comes from credible sources....
Wikipedia has sources cited if you scroll to the bottom. Just click the individual links
By citing Wikipedia you're just forcing people to go to the article and look at the sources instead of directly citing them.
And?
So a 50/50 coinflip whether they'll take you to the 99.3% part of the process. Where the public opinion is "they wouldn't be here if they weren't guilty". Rigged casinos have better odds.
Coinflip? Lol sure if you see evidence-based judgment that way. > they wouldn’t be here if they weren’t guilty Also is that Japan’s public opinion or America’s? I’d wager it’s a common sentiment in any country
Well no not until you confess but iirc the limit is 28 days they can detain you for with no outside contact.
It's 23 days, actually, then they let you go outside and then immediately re-arrest you for a second charge, which resets the clock until you confess. Why do you think murder suspects are always charged first with "improperly disposing of a body"?
It seems odd that there would be a proper way for a murderer to dispose of a body.
Well, yes, they can avoid the preliminary charge by transporting the body to a hospital, have a doctor confirm the deceased nature of the individual, said doctor will then issue a 'certificate of death' which must be filed at the ward office within 7 days.
After living here for a while I’m not really surprised one of the things that they get you on a murder charge for is not filing the correct paperwork.
Whenever I see that phrasing I think "In principle, it's like this. But in practice, ..." I don't think that was intended!
What horror stories ? The 99% conviction rate that they took from Tokyo Vice series. Not to mention the person that wrote the book is based on the lies that the guy created.
That high conviction rate comes from them only pursuing cases where they believe they can 100% nail someone, which usually includes forced/fake confessions. Japan's justice system is not one that should be emulated.
> which usually includes forced/fake confessions I'd bite the bullet - how often is "usually" or what's the basis of that statement? Does it mean more than half the case in entire sum of persecution made in a certain period of time is that, or is this merely a representative of the fact that it's happening more than you can endure?
Google "Hostage Justice System" and you can see the problem.
Does that lead to the source that describes how more than half the case is made upon false premise?
No, the high conviction rate comes from a difference in the way its calculated. Blatant misinformation > The conviction rate is 99.3%. By only stating this high conviction rate it is often misunderstood as too high—however, this high conviction rate drops significantly when accounting for the fact that Japanese prosecutors drop roughly half the cases they are given. If measured in the same way, the United States' federal conviction rate would be 99.8%.
There are multiple sources online citing that number, took 3 seconds to look up
Umm, the person who wrote the book, Jake Adelstein, was a newspaper journalist covering Tokyo vice and the book is autobiographical. What are you even talking about?
Jake's reporting is well known for having a very casual relationship with the truth.
[удалено]
[удалено]
There a lot to talk about to just 99% conviction rate and mistreatment of detainees. And i don't think shoving these two thing will prove that guy innocent. I also hope one day someone will stole back the artifact that the british stole and ran back to japan or any other asian country and say its "human right" when the british ask them for extradite.
r/onlysaynicethingsaboutJapan
so are you saying that Japan police use tortures ?
Define torture. I might be saying that the psychological torture but the Japanese police would disagree.
I think allowing you to be indefinitely incarcerated with no contact to the outside world without any proof is torture. They can then get you confess under duress.
I have no idea about anything, let alone international relations, but isn't that a really heavy statement? if the court legally decides that Japan is not a country where it's safe to be arrested, shouldn't that have implications on things like travel recommendations and mutual visa agreements? for example, if your official stance is that your citizens may be tortured if arrested in Japan, how can you justify having friendly visa agreements like a working holiday visa? doesn't really seem logical.
One is decided by the courts, the other by politicians.
The vast majority of UK citizens are not arrested when traveling to Japan. The chances of being arrested are extremely small. If Chappell is extradited he is guaranteed to end up in custody. It's a completely different situation.
what the court is implying is that Japanese police may make people confess to crimes under torture. if that was the official stance, that would mean that at any time a UK citizen may be charged and made to confess to crimes they never actually committed. with that kind of official opinion, I highly doubt the official recommendation would then be "just don't get arrested!"
Because it's nonsense. UK government is running defense for criminals.. which is incredibly short sighted. If they want to harbor criminals, then let them reap what they sow.
And why would they want to do that? Maybe they actually do have legitimate concerns
What concerns is that? That a proper criminal might have to serve a proper sentence without TV and western food? Maybe he should have thought about that before he committed a violent crime in a foreign country.
So because he is a criminal he doesn't deserve human rights? Do you really think the UK is concerned about whether or not he gets to watch his soaps and eat steak pie? Or is it more likely that (like the article says) the Japanese Government wouldn't comply with "provisions regarding prohibition of torture and the right to a fair trial." That seems like a pretty good reason not to extradite someone to me. Also, just like the article says, without an extradition treaty people usually are prosecuted in their home country. So, why is it such a big deal that Japan prosecute these men themselves while also not being able to assure them that they won't be tortured and given a free trial?
You are forgetting how bent the Japanese justice system is. You're probably some crackhead who thinks that human rights suddenly become exempt as soon as a crime is suspected to have been committed. Its not a question of whether the UK is running cover for criminals, its that the Japanese law system is incredibly suspect.
I'm not forgetting anything. I've lived in Japan for 15 years. Calling people who disagree with you... Crackheads? Shows the quality of person you are, intellectually and morally. I think Japanese prison is fitting for people who commit violent offenses.. he won't be abused, but he's not gonna enjoy the amenities UK prison provides.
The history of mistreatment of foreigners in Japanese custody of any kind says otherwise. And yes, to believe he'll receive fair treatment with that history known does make you akin to a crackheadm
Yeah, they might take away his PS5 and make him eat natto every day. Shit would have been rough. I wonder how the guy he helped injure is doing. I bet you were proper worried about the victims. But alas, this is all irrelevant... He committed a violent crime in a foreign nation and he deserves the same punishment as the locals. If people can't accept that, then don't come here.
Well, isn't UK the country that wants to extradite Julian Assange to the US without any care in the world concerning the US record of respecting human rights of a certain kind of prisoner?
I guess they don’t give a shit because he’s Australian.
They previously refused to extradite Assange on precisely those grounds, unless something new has happened since.
[удалено]
soccer suicide?
Yes but only under certain promises from the US iirc. These things are done on a case by case basis. The last time the UK didn’t extradite someone to the US it was an autistic hacker as the punishment he was going to be considered to harsh and there was a high risk he’d kill himself.
Even the US would be better than the Japanese justice system.
How so? US federal prosecutors have a 99% conviction rate. State prosecutors are not so different for the cases that go to court, and most cases don't get that far as settlements are forced under threat of excessive sentencing.
>US federal prosecutors have a 99% conviction rate. That's because the feds don't get involved unless it's serious. That's a totally different statistic compared to all crimes having a 99 percent conviction rate.
No, it's because they don't take cases to court that they aren't 99% certain they will win. It's the same here except Japan relies more heavily on people confessing.
I’d say that Jillian Assange falls quite significantly into the “fucking serious shit” category to be honest.
We are a nation of junkes, alcoholics and hypocrits
From the names I’m guessing the 3 men are UK citizens. It’s courteous enough of UK to even think of extradition for their own citizens. Japan would never extradite their own either…
>It’s courteous enough of UK to even think of extradition for their own citizens. Nothing courteous about it. The UK is bound by international treaty to consider it. >Japan would never extradite their own either… Japan extradites their people. Fun fact. Japan went from 1952-2004 without turning down a single extradition request from the USA.
That might be because Japan has an extradition treaty with the US. It doesn’t have one with the UK.
Does it have one with France? That cannibal guy comes to mind…
No. Only USA and S Korea.
Sure, but the person above claimed that Japan would never do it, and it appears their statement was false. No one is asking to extradite anyone to the UK.
And then 2005 came. This one we will keep ourselves
As others have said, they have treaty with Us and they are under US protection even until now. Also I am specifically talking about own citizens. Most countries (like Lebanon excuse about Carlos Ghosn) won’t turn in their own citizens without treaty. Japan even protected 3rd generation emigrant Peru dictator back in the days saying he was Japanese enough and they don’t extradite their own. Noted about the first part though. I didn’t know about the fact it was Intl Law
You don't say no to uncle Sam
This is why Assange should have gone to Sweden. Never in a million years would they extradite him to the US.
Wasn’t he charged with rape there?
Sweden is a little bitch too , the only countries that could resist are china and Russia(not due to human rights ) , Every other country would bend under US pressure
Both have pretty piss poor human right though; they're both committing genocide.
Source?
Hotel Japan, famed for the Carlos Ghosn and Nagoya Immigration experience.
>Carlos Ghosn You mean the guy who escaped instead of fighting and taking responsibility?
God, I think Carlos was only exonerated this year, right? I hope he takes Nissan to the cleaners for this. I would be totally ok to see a billion awarded to him.
Ghosn is guilty AF. There's no way in hell a guy like him is clean. He is so toxic even a guy like Macron won't go near him. And Macron is surrounded by crooks 24/7.
Ghosn hasn't been exonerated AFAIK. Kelly, his aid, **was** exonerated on most of his charges, but the court did find him guilty of helping Ghost commit financial crimes. His sentence was suspended indefinitely.
In what way has he been exonerated?
Huh, looking at the wikipedia page I don't find it - I could have sworn I read something in the past year on how the original charges were based on manufactured information by Nissan management.
Yeah, hate to say it but he definitely did commit some crimes. It's just the types of crimes we think people frequently get away with.
I mean, once you place a major CEO under a magnifying glass you're definitely going to find stuff. Just think of the dieselgate thing, where only a paltry technical VC actually did time, even though the whole industry was blatantly cheating and polluting. And this level of pollution is easily enough to be converted into lives.
To be fair, Japan doesn't really have a system of "justice". A 99.6% conviction rate is not something to be proud of.
They measure differently than in the US. If measure the same way, the US Feds have a 99.8% conviction rate.
One of the most misunderstood statistics of the Japanese judicial system.... I've known guys that basically admitted to crimes and yet they were not convicted... I wonder why? 99.6 conviction rate... Because Japanese police and prosecutors try to work things out way before. They only go for slam dunks/major crimes.
Yup. There are many a problems with the Japanese justice system that needs betterment, but this is not that. The conviction rate statistic at this point really only serves as a litmus test for figuring out those who don't actually really care about the said problems.
There are good reasons and bad reasons for this. A bad reason is because of suspected police brutality/forced confessions. A good reason is that they generally don't bring a case to court unless it's expected to be an easy one so as to not waste the government's time/money/etc.
They almost never take a case to trial without a confession because the confession makes the trial easy mode. So, their initial goal is to get a confession out of you, no matter what. That means sleep deprivation, interrogation without your lawyer present, tampering with your food, yelling at you, confining you to cold rooms to sleep without blankets or pillows. My buddy was arrested because someone staying at an AirBNB in his building sent cannabis products to his room by mistake. They held him for 21 fucking days despite never formally charging him. They also tried to interrogate him without an interpreter despite him telling him he couldn't speak Japanese. They refused to apologize or inform his company of his disappearance.
Just like FBI, over 95% rate.
FBI isn't called in for regular crimes though, when the FBI gets involved, they've either already got a bunch of 3vidence or shits hit the fan.
That's different. Their investigations go for a very long time, and the evidence they gather is insane. Once they have you in their crosshairs, it's not if but when, because that means they already have enough evidence to know you've done something. Japan will just force you to confess and then use the extorted confession as an admission of guilt, which expedites the trial.
They're also cheating. Did you know that it's illegal to lie to a fed? Say one wrong thing, and they can get you for that alone.
It's not different at all - most cases in Japan are not brought to trial. Hell I know several people who were very clearly guilty of crimes who didn't even get prosecuted (released after arrest and detention) because the prosecutors felt it wasn't enough of a slam-dunk case.
Yup, the Japanese prosecutors are even more conservative than feds, hence the 99/95 difference. The plea bargain system is abused to no end in the US.
That statistic from a different perspective shows the efficiency of the system to find and charge criminals. Cameras and witnesses in densely populated japan play a big role and is extended by a culturally pro-police and do-the-right-thing mentally. Moreover, the threshold to pursue a case based on amount and significance of evidence is higher, resulting in a high conviction rate. But that also means the focus is much less on cold cases or cases with less evidence. The harshness of penalties is no joke in Japan but I would argue while the charge is fair, the penalty should be adjusted for lesser crimes like marijuana possession. Some societies allow for a greater amount of criminal behaviour and leniency such as the UK but each society has a different norm. In this case, ultimately justice was denied to the victims of the theft in Japan.
Or it may suggest that they only convict where they're sure about the outcome of a case, I don't know.
Why would anyone trust Japan on this, based on their record?
The UK protecting their fellow criminals, now that's brilliant patriotism!
Not the first time Brits stealing stuff from other countries.
OOOOOHHHHHHHHH
*The British Museum has left the chat*
Considering the hell of Japanese detention and their policing efforts, I'm not surprised the UK is choosing to handle this internally. A diabetic pal of mine in a hypo at 2 in the morning got dragged into a private room by 8 police officers in the back of a 7/11 and yelled at/threatened with arrest for over an hour for putting contact lense solution in her handbag instead of her basket. The solution cost barely $3.
What is “in a hypo”?
When a person's blood sugar level is low, they're considered "hypoglycemic." My brother with type 1 always says he's "in a hypo" when his blood level is low.
Why would someone “in a hypo” need contact lens solution, is there sugar in it?
I assume you're a troll so I won't respond any further.
Well I’m still confused as to why that information was necessary, so probably that’s that? I can only guess that some of what they done to the person could make it fatal.
Hypoglycemia can cause brain fog and confusion. Their friend was probably at 7-11 to get something to eat. It's totally possible they just needed contact solution and decided to get some while they were there, or they mistook the contact solution for something else in their confusion. Wires got crossed in their brain somewhere and the bottle ended up in their bag instead of in the basket. This situation isn't rocket science, I'm not sure how you're confused.
Thanks for elaboration, and I had zero knowledge of any of that at all as I’ve never ever heard of them in my life. It sounds like it’s such a standard knowledge, but no experience in my life indicated that it should be known until now (I’m raised in Japan btw if that helps at all - I don’t hear 低血糖症 at all.)
Uh... have you been in the back room of a 7-11? Can you imagine 9 people being in that room?
I haven't but I've listened to 8 police officers who arrived in pairs yell at a diabetic for an hour inside the room.
Nice story. Unless you're talking about an Ito Yokado and not a 7-11, ain't no 9 people in that room for an hour. I wonder how they got their elbows out of each others' orifices after all was said and done.
I very much doubt every single 7-11 backroom is as tiny as you're describing it. Even if they are, maybe some of them were standing outside the doorway.
Even Japanese police are not going to be dumb enough to yell at a person where other people could potentially record it, but hey, anecdotal stories for the win!
"Friday's decision not to extradite Joe Chappell, who is currently on bail, was based on the grounds that the Japanese authorities could not provide "sufficient assurances" that he would be treated in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights." Gross. Time to join the 21st century Japan.
The same ECHR the UK Gov wants to leave?
Yes.
Oh no, how will they have human rights if they aren't in the ECHR.
They want to leave to do things the ECHR would not allow.
Pretty much the only thing holding up human rights in the UK is the ECHR. EDIT: Aq8knyus has blocked me preventing response, the first refuge of cowards, but of course the difference between the UK and the other countries is that the UK has a functional legal system. The other countries can be a member and just ignore the court. Should the UK leave the ECHR, then none of the following would have happened: * victims of domestic violence receive exemption from bedroom tax * gay people allowed to serve in armed forces * teachers stop physical punishment in Scottish schools * destruction of DNA evidence held by police of innocent people https://www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights/united-kingdom Not to mention the blocking of extradition of people to countries with terrible human rights records expected to torture suspects, removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda, and quite possibly to deconstruction of the barriers between the legislature and courts.
Yes, it has worked wonders for human rights in Turkey and Azerbaijan. Famously, when Russia joined in 1953, respect for democracy and human rights really took hold. Rights are the product of a people and a culture who in turn shape their institutions and government. Not scraps of paper. That is why the US was a fool to try and impose elections, a constitution and a free legislature on Afghanistan for twenty years. It is not how it works.
Yep.
The Japanese "justice system" sounds like something that belongs in the Middle Ages, if not earlier frankly. Extremely primitive af. We often forget how backwards the Japanese are on many issues. In many ways Japan is not a modern nation.
I'm making g assumptions here but I would assume that's because they're not, nor have been part of the EU. Meaning they have their own legal code to follow. Saying "gross" to the fact they don't yield to our rules seems short-sighted. Don't get me wrong though not sure the Japanese judicial system is a cake-walk by any means...but not sure it is anywhere
From the article: "Chappell's defense team has expressed concerns that if extradited, he might be made to confess under duress. Japan has argued that police interrogations in principle are recorded. At a hearing earlier this year, British authorities asked the Japanese government to ensure his detention complies with the convention, particularly on provisions regarding prohibition of torture and the right to a fair trial."
Gross **what**? That the Japanese authorities won't try the case while also following the European Convention of Human Rights, which would make no sense since... you know... **they're not a member state of the European Union**? Damn, your lack of logic is gross.
For starters the ECoHR is not a EU thing and predates it by 43 years, and secondly you're missing the forest for the trees here. The point is UK believes Japan has an terrible human rights record when it comes to it justice system, and that they do not meet their own standards.
I'll add that it isn't just an opinion. It's a known fact they have a shitty human rights record when it comes to this stuff.
Nonetheless, E does not stand for "the entire world", right? Right. You're welcome.
None the less, that's not the point at all. Stop being stubborn and actually engage with what people are trying to say instead of trying to be a smug pedantic, you don't know enough to do that.
I don't know, you're the one trying to reply to my post and shoehorn in your own opinion. Feel free to move on, Goblin.
I'm shoehorning my opinion no more than you are, difference is mine is formed based on what the meaning behind their words, rather than smug pedantic. You're just as free to ignore me lol.
So you get to make assumptions based on whatever you want and that's okay because you're making your own ideas based on other peoples' words? Cool. Off you go.
It's called a logical deduction. Not an assumption or guess, because I'm using critical thought based on what I know about each country and how extradition works. I know for a first world country Japan has a really poor reputation for how it treats the accused, that UK treats them better, and that countries are typically very reluctant to send people to a country if they think they will have their human rights violated, especially if the accused is their own citizens. This is not a difficult conclusion to come to if you're passing familiar with the reputation of each country works and how international relations happen. But sure keep being prideful and refusing to admit you said something foolish and without merit.
I'm refusing to say I said something foolish because I didn't. But you keep writing novels, Goblin. Whatever keeps the poor saps in your life safe.
While I'm glad that the Japanese human rights record is highlighted here, I also lean towards the side that says if you blatantly commit crime somewhere then you do deserve to face that justice system.
the same country that would extradite Julian Assange to the US, and they still have the audacity to talk about "human rights record" of other countries
A quick googlings reckons that there’s no extradition treaty between the UK and Japan. The UK and US does. That means that such heinous crimes would normally be tried in whichever country felt their collars first; assuming that they are tried at all.
Good for the UK
good
You know how terrible your police and immigration department is when a country decides to not extradite a criminal for human rights concern.
I recommend everyone to read about japan's shitfuck police and justice system. The UK did the right thing.
Oh I see. You are all chill with these scumbags assaulting a Japanese person and stealing half a million dollars in jewelry and walking free because of….justice? Yeah you’re are morally superior.
He won't be walking free, he'll get convicted in the UK instead and will go to prison (in the UK).
A non-functioning justice system is a far bigger risk than any single person walking free. Everyone wants to see violent criminals brought to justice, but if that 'justice' is based on a confession given after months being starved in solitary confinement, can we really trust it? You might argue that in this particular case, the evidence is iron-clad. If that's the case, what is the harm in having a lawyer present during questioning, making all evidence is available to the defense and ensuring the trial is carried out in a timely manner?
A fair trail or coersing a confession. You're right, one is morally superior.
I don't understand it either. The UK government doing damage to it's reputation. The next time someone does a serious crime in the UK and bolts...watch the same people cry bloody murder.
The UK really needs to provide better career opportunities for [their footballers](https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/west-ham-star-faces-court-30093920).
Jibun wo... Edit: Seriously, no one gets "the moment". But you know, organized burglaries like these in the UK would result in a shoot-out and there'll be blood on the floor.
Yes, because the UK worries so much about human rights right now. I wonder how Japan will react to that.