..

..

Japan The Police System

http://www.photius.com/countries/japan/national_security/japan_national_security_the_police_system.html
Sources: The Library of Congress Country Studies; CIA World Factbook

|Main
INDEX|

Countr
y
Ranks

INDEX
for
Japan

Histor
y

Geogr
aphy

Societ
y

Gover
nment

Econo
my

Nation
al
Securi
ty

Maps

Flags

Glossa
ry

DEFINI
TIONS

<< Back to Japan National Security

The Japanese government established a European-style civil
police system in 1874, under the centralized control of the
Police Bureau within the Home Ministry, to put down internal
disturbances and maintain order during the Meiji Restoration.
By the 1880s, the police had developed into a nationwide
instrument of government control, providing support for local
leaders and enforcing public morality. They acted as general
civil administrators, implementing official policies and thereby
facilitating unification and modernization. In rural areas
especially, the police had great authority and were accorded the
same mixture of fear and respect as the village head. Their
increasing involvement in political affairs was one of the
foundations of the authoritarian state in Japan in the first half of
the twentieth century.
The centralized police system steadily acquired responsibilities,
until it controlled almost all aspects of daily life, including fire
prevention and mediation of labor disputes. The system
regulated public health, business, factories, and construction,
and it issued permits and licenses. The Peace Preservation Law
of 1925 gave police the authority to arrest people for "wrong
thoughts." Special Higher Police were created to regulate the
content of motion pictures, political meetings, and election
campaigns. Military police operating under the army and navy
and the justice and home ministries aided the civilian police in
limiting proscribed political activity. After the Manchurian
Incident of 1931, military police assumed greater authority,
leading to friction with their civilian counterparts (see World War
II , this ch.). After 1937 police directed business activities for the
war effort, mobilized labor, and controlled transportation.
After Japan's surrender in 1945, occupation authorities retained
the prewar police structure until a new system was implemented
and the Diet passed the 1947 Police Law. Contrary to Japanese
proposals for a strong, centralized force to deal with postwar

.
Feedb
ack

unrest, the police system was decentralized. About 1,600

independent municipal forces were established in cities, towns,
and villages with 5,000 inhabitants or more, and a National
Rural Police was organized by prefecture. Civilian control was
to be ensured by placing the police under the jurisdiction of
public safety commissions controlled by the National Public
Safety Commission in the Office of the Prime Minister. The
Home Ministry was abolished and replaced by the less powerful
Ministry of Home Affairs, and the police were stripped of their
responsibility for fire protection, public health, and other
administrative duties.
When most of the occupation forces were transferred to Korea
in 1950-51, the 75,000 strong National Police Reserve was
formed to back up the ordinary police during civil disturbances,
and pressure mounted for a centralized system more
compatible with Japanese political preferences. The 1947
Police Law was amended in 1951 to allow the municipal police
of smaller communities to merge with the National Rural Police.
Most chose this arrangement, and by 1954 only about 400
cities, towns, and villages still had their own police forces.
Under the 1954 amended Police Law, a final restructuring
created an even more centralized system in which local forces
were organized by prefectures under a National Police Agency
(see fig. 15).
The revised Police Law of 1954, still in effect in the 1990s,
preserves some strong points of the postwar system,
particularly measures ensuring civilian control and political
neutrality, while allowing for increased centralization. The
National Public Safety Commission system has been retained.
State responsibility for maintaining public order has been
clarified to include coordination of national and local efforts;
centralization of police information, communications, and
recordkeeping facilities; and national standards for training,
uniforms, pay, rank, and promotion. Rural and municipal forces
were abolished and integrated into prefectural forces, which
handled basic police matters. Officials and inspectors in various
ministries and agencies continue to exercise special police
functions assigned to them in the 1947 Police Law.
Data as of January 1994

NOTE: The information regarding Japan on this page is republished from The Library of Congress Country Studies
and the CIA World Factbook. No claims are made regarding
the accuracy of Japan The Police System information
contained here. All suggestions for corrections of any
errors about Japan The Police System should be
addressed to the Library of Congress and the CIA.

http://www.photius.com/countries/japan/national_security/j
apan_national_security_the_police_system.html

Law enforcement in Japan is provided by the Prefectural

Police under the oversight of the National Police Agency or
NPA. The NPA is administered by the National Public Safety
Commission, thus ensuring that Japan's police are an
apolitical body and free of direct central government
executive control. They are checked by an independent
judiciary and monitored by a free and active press.

Equipment
Uniform
For much of the twentieth century up to the mid-1990s, police officers wore a
formal work uniform consisting of a tunic or Ike jacket with polished silver
buttons, and trousers with a sewn in truncheon pocket. No stab vest was worn
and much less equipment was carried than is today. Following concerns about
the police uniforms safety it was suggested that the uniform should be
changed.
From the 1990s it was generally accepted that the police could patrol in "shirtsleeve order" which meant that they need not wear the jacket, as its
widespread use was hampering in some situations. The NPA, in agreement
with the government and on the cooperation of the Prefecture Chiefs of
Police, changed the uniform from the business attire with no protection of the

torso, to a uniform of button down shirt with trousers, stab vest, duty belt, and
jacket when needed.
Although there are minor variations in the styling, pattern and insignia, the
police forces all wear very similar uniforms. In general, these have taken their
lead from the Tokyo Metropolitan Police, due to it being the largest police
service in Japan. The base color is a dark blue or a frosted grey for summer
wear.
Female officers' uniforms have gone through a great variety of styles, as they
have tended to reflect the women's fashions of the time. Tunic style, skirt
length and headgear have varied by period and force. By the late 1980s, the
female working uniform was virtually identical to male, except for headgear
and sometimes neckwear.
Formal uniform comprises an open-necked tunic (with or without an attached
belt, depending on the force and rank of the Officer) and trousers or skirt,
worn with a white or light blue shirt and black tie (usually clip-on, so it
cannot be used to strangle the wearer).
The normal working dress retains the shirt and trousers. In some forces short
sleeved shirts may be worn open-necked. Long sleeved shirts must always be
worn with a tie, worn with or without a jersey or fleece. If a jersey, fleece or
jacket is worn over a short sleeved shirt, then a tie must be worn.
Today, female officers almost never wear a skirt in working dress, and
frequently wear trousers in formal dress as well. Officers also frequently wear
reflective waterproof jackets, which have replaced the old greatcoats and
cloaks traditionally worn in inclement weather. Most officers now wear stab
vests, a type of body armour, when on duty.
Basic headgear is a peaked cap for men, and a soft round bowler hat for
women. Traffic officers wear white cap covers or caps.
Most Japanese police wear white gloves while they are on duty. Some also
wear white pistol belts, lanyards, helmets, boot laces or leggings.

Service weapon
In the pre-war era, most Japanese law enforcement officials had only a sabre.
Only some elite detectives, bodyguards, or SWAT units such as the Special
Security Unit of the TMPD were issued pistols. FN Model 1910 or Colt
Model 1903 were used for open-carry uses, and Colt Model 1908 Vest Pocket
or FN M1905 for concealed carry. During the Occupation, the Supreme
Commander for the Allied Powers suggested them to be equipped with

firearms. Because of the insufficient stocks of the domestic handguns,

Japanese police started to receive service pistols leased from the Allies from
1949, and by 1951, all officers were issued pistols.[8]
At the beginning, types of sidearm varied, but M1911 pistols and M1917
revolvers, Smith & Wesson Military & Police and Colt Official Police were
used as the main sidearm. The .38 caliber revolvers were well-received, but
M1917 and M1911 were too large to carry for somewhat small officers
especially women. And especially M1917 revolvers were obsolete,
deteriorated significantly, so malfunction or reduced accuracy had been a
problem. As a response to these issues, the National Rural Police
Headquarters (one of the predecessors of the National Police Agency) started
to import small .38 Special caliber revolvers such as Smith & Wesson Chiefs
Special and Colt Detective Special. And from the 1960s, procurement began
to migrate to the domestic Minebea M60 "New Nambu". When the production
of the M60 was completed in the 1990s, deployment of small semi-automatic
pistols were considered, but this plan was abandoned after small numbers of
SIG Sauer P230 were deployed. Finally, imports from the United States was
resumed, S&W M37 and M360 revolvers have been purchased for uniformed
officers. And some elite detectives, bodyguards, or counter-terrorism units
such as the Special Assault Team are equipped with 919mm Parabellum
caliber semi-automatic pistols, Heckler & Koch USP, for example.[9]
From 1970s, national-level counter-terrorism units (ancestors of the Special
Assault Teams) introduced Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine guns. And from
2000s, local counter-terrorism units (Anti-firearms squads) and SWAT units of
crime branches (Special Investigation Team of the TMPD, for example) were
started to be equipped with MP5. In the SAT units, there are also assault rifles.
[9]

Initially the sniper team was established in the 1960s, the Golden Bear has
been used as a sniper rifle, then, it has been updated to the M1500. In the
Special Assault Teams, Heckler & Koch PSG1 and L96A1 also been
deployed.[9]
In the Japanese police, service pistols are generally left at work when they are
not on duty.[10]

Transportation
Ground
In Japan, there are about 40,000 police vehicles nationwide with the average
patrol cruisers being Toyota Crowns and similar large sedans, although small
compact and micro cars are used by rural police boxes and in city centers

where they are much more maneuverable. Pursuit vehicles depend on

prefectures with the Honda NSX, Subaru Impreza, Subaru Legacy, Mitsubishi
Lancer, Nissan Skyline, Mazda RX-7, and Nissan Fairlady Z are all used in
various prefectures for highway patrols and pursuit uses.
With the exception of unmarked traffic enforcement vehicles, all Japanese
police forces are painted and marked in the same ways. Japanese police
vehicles are painted black and white with the upper parts of the vehicle
painted white. Motorcycles are usually all white and riot control and rescue
vehicles are painted a steel blue.

trainings

Get
ready for some police-jutsu to the
face
The Martial Art Used By Japanese Police

May 10, 2013 625 words written by Hashi Art by Aya Francisco
One of Japans biggest cultural exports is its martial arts: karate, judo, aikido,
kendo. Back before anime got really big, Japanese martial arts was one of the
big draws that got Westerners saying I wanna move to Japan!
Beyond the romantic notions of Japanese martial arts as some kind of path to
enlightenment or self-realization, they still have lots of practical applications.
Japanese cops are one group of people who still incorporate martial arts into
their everyday work.
Japanese police work in a very different environment with a different set of
tools and expectations than, say, American cops. While an American police
officer using their gun is uncommon, its even more rare with Japanese police.
Using a gun in Japan, even if youre a police officer, carries with it incredible
consequences (the paperwork is the real killer), so its no surprise that the
police have a wide arsenal of less lethal methods of subduing criminals.

In that arsenal is a martial art known as taiho-jutsu , which literally

translates into arrest technique. Its used by police, Imperial guard, the
Japanese Self-Defense Force, Kamen Riders, Sailor Scouts, and pretty much
every law enforcement and military agency in Japan.
May or may not use taiho jutsu

Japanese law enforcement has used martial arts for a long, long time, but the
modern taiho jutsu didnt start to take shape until after WWII, around 1947.
Post-war Japan was more or less entirely ruled by the occupying United States
forces, which placed some restrictions on the way that Japanese police
operated, including limiting their use of physical force and traditional martial
arts.
At first, this caused problems; the country was in ruins and unrest, and
limiting police meant that they had a hard time keeping order.
Fortunately, Japanese police officers turned lemons into lemonade and took
the opportunity to basically build a new martial art from scratch.
Fact: all criminals wear hockey masks

If you know about Krav Maga, the martial art developed by Israeli police and
military, then you have a pretty good idea of what taiho jutsu is all about.
Both were developed for military and law enforcement, and both are built out
of other martial arts.
Taiho jutsu, unlike Krav Maga, had the benefit of being created in a place
with a strong martial arts tradition. When the Tokyo police bureau was in the
process of creating taiho jutsu, it gathered masters from lots of different
martial arts including judo and kendo, along with experts in armed combat
too.
The martial art that was created in the postwar era was existed ever since,
with minor revisions along the way. It incorporates lots of ways of disarming
people with hand-to-hand combat, in addition to using police batons and,
heaven forbid, guns.
When Japanese police arent laying down the law against would-be criminals,

they practice and show off their skills in exhibition matches between officers.
Not only is it nice to work out aggression against co-workers in a sancation
environment, but these exhibitions have the added bonus of providing officers
with the incentive to train harder to beat their peers.

Pillars
Three basic features of Japan's system of criminal justice

characterize its operations. First, the institutionspolice, government

prosecutors' offices, courts, and correctional organsmaintain 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. Finally, officials who
administer criminal justice are allowed considerable discretion in dealing with
offenders.

Contents

1 History

2 Criminal procedure

3 Juveniles

4 Citizens
o 4.1 Arrest
o 4.2 Prosecution
o 4.3 Inquest of prosecution
o 4.4 Trial

4.4.1 Trial by lay judge

5 Conviction rate

6 Confession in Japanese criminal investigation

7 See also

8 Notes

9 References

10 External links

History
Until the Meiji Restoration in 1868, the Japanese criminal justice system was
controlled mainly by daimyo. Public officials, not laws, guided and
constrained people to conform to moral norms. In accordance with the
Confucian ideal, officials were to serve as models of behavior; the people,

who lacked rights and had only obligations, were expected to obey. Such laws
as did exist were transmitted through local military officials in the form of
local domain laws. Specific enforcement varied from domain to domain, and
no formal penal codes existed. Justice was generally harsh, and severity
depended upon one's status. Kin and neighbors could share blame for an
offender's guilt: whole families and villages could be flogged or put to death
for one member's transgression. (see Criminal punishment in Edo-period
Japan for details)
After 1868 the justice system underwent rapid transformation. The first
publicly promulgated legal codes, the Penal Code of 1880 and the Code of
Criminal Instruction of 1880, were based on French models, i.e. the
Napoleonic code. Offenses were specified, and set punishments were
established for particular crimes. 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. Guilt was
held to be personal; collective guilt and guilt by association were abolished.
Offenses against the emperor were spelled out for the first time.
Innovative aspects of the codes notwithstanding, certain provisions reflected
traditional attitudes toward authority. The prosecutor represented the state and
sat with the judge on a raised platformhis position above the defendant and
the defense counsel suggesting their relative status. Under a semi-inquisitorial
system, primary responsibility for questioning witnesses lay with the judge,
and defense counsel could question witnesses only through the judge. Cases
were referred to trial only after a judge presided over a preliminary factfinding investigation in which the suspect was not permitted counsel. Because
in all trials available evidence had already convinced the court in a
preliminary procedure, the defendant's legal presumption of innocence at trial
was undermined, and the legal recourse open to his counsel was further
weakened.
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.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
IN
JAPAN
HARUO
ABE

The
author
received
the
LL.B.
from
the
Tokyo
Imperial
University,
and
the
LL.M.
from
Harvard
Law
School.
He
is
Public

Procurator
(Assistant
District
Attorney)
in
Tokyo,
and
a
member
of
the
Criminal
Affairs
Bureau,
Ministry
of
Justice
of
Japan.
The
present
article
was
prepared
after
the
model
of
Professor
Fred
E.
Inbau's
"Criminal
Procedure
in
the
United
States"
which
had
been

translated
and
published
in
Germany
as,
Das
Strafverfahren
in
den
Vereeiniglen
Staaten
von
Amerika,
Juristenzeitung,
Heft
19,
S.
581-584
(1952).
The
author
acknowledges
the
advice
and
assistance
of
Professor
Inbau,
Mr.
Thomas
L.
Blakemore,
Mr.
Alexander
D.
Calhoun,
Jr.,
Judge

Tsugio
Nakano,
Judge
Fumio
Kurimoto,
and
Public
Prosecutor
Hisakazu
Suzuki,
in
preparing
this
article
for
publication
.EDTog.
I.
INTRODUCTION

The
procedure
followed
in
a
criminal
case
is
the
same
for
all
of
Japan.
There
is
only
one
territorial

jurisdiction
and
it
is
on
a
national
level.
The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure
of
1948
and
the
Rules
of
Criminal
Procedure
of
1949
are
the
principal
sources
of
law
governing
criminal
procedure.
Since
Japan
is
one
of
the

civil
law
countries,
case
law
has
only
a
secondary
significance.
As
of
1957,
criminal
cases
are
handled
by
570
summary
courts,
49
district
courts,
eight
high
courts
(courts
of
appeals),
and
the
Supreme
Court.
There
are
also
49
juvenile
courts
whose

special
jurisdiction
and
procedure
are
provided
for
in
the
Juvenile
Law
of
1948.
Historically
the
Japanese
law
of
criminal
procedure
is
the
result
of
a
mixture
of
European
and
Anglo-American
traditions
of
law.
The
so-called
Old
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure
of

1922
was
based
in
its
entirety
on
German
law.
The
new
code
of
criminal
procedure
of
1948
which
was
adopted
under
the
New
Constitution
of
1946,
is
still
based
on
the
old
law
in
its
general
scheme,
but
it
also
has

largely
and
abruptly
adopted
Anglo-American
devices
to
protect
human
rights.
In
this
article
an
effort
has
been
made
to
describe
briefly
and
simply
Japanese
criminal
procedure
with
specific
reference
to
those
aspects
of
its
functioning
which
should
be
of
most
interest

to
the
lawyers,
jurists,
prosecuting
attorneys,
and
police
of
other
countries
who
have
little
or
no
knowledge
of
the
criminal
procedure
of
Japan.

II.
PROCEDURE
FROm
ARREST
TO
TRIAL

(a)
INVESTIGATING
ORGANS:

The
principal
investigating
organs
are
the
police
and
public

prosecutors.
They
cooperate
and
divide
the
work
of
investigation
between
them;
the
former
collect
HARUOABE

evidence
in
a
crude
form,
whereas
the
latter
refine
and
reinforce
it
from
a
legal
standpoint.
The
public
prosecutors
also
may
give

necessary
general
advice
to
the
police
or
ask
them
to
assist
in
their
investigations.
The
police
and
the
public
prosecutors
usually
start
their
investigation
on
their
own
initiative,
although
private
victims
may
file
complaints
with
them.
Investigation

will
be
made
with
or
without
force
depending
upon
the
cooperation
of
the
subject.
Exercise
of
power
upon
persons
or
things
of
evidentiary
value
is
generally
subject
to
judicial
control
in
the
form
of
warrants
for
arrest

or
search
and
seisure.
(b)
ARREST:

Generally,
a
warrant
issued
by
a
judge
is
necessary
for
an
arrest.
However,
any
person
may
arrest
without
warrant
an
offender
who
is
committing
or
has
just
committed
a
crime

in
his
presence.
An
investigating
official
also
may
arrest
the
suspect
without
warrant
if
he
has
sufficient
grounds
to
believe
that
the
latter
has
committed
certain
types
of
serious
crimes
and
if,
in
addition,
there
is no
time

to
procure
a
warrant.
In
this
case
a
warrant
must
be
procured
soon
after.
(C)
PROCEDURE
SUBSEQUENT
TO
ARREST:

If
the
police
need
to
detain
an
arrested
suspect,
they
must
take
him
to
a
public
prosecutor
within
48

hours
together
with
evidence
showing
reasonable
grounds
to
support
their
suspicion
of
guilt.
The
public
prosecutor
who
receives
the
suspect
shall
immediately
inform
him
of
the
charges
against
him
and
of
his
right
to
the
aid
of

counsel
and
shall
give
him
an
opportunity
for
explanation.
The
prosecutor
will
also
make
investigation
to
obtain
further
evidence
supporting
the
suspicion
of
guilt.
If
the
prosecutor
finds
that
the
detention
of
the
suspect
is
both
necessary

and
supported
by
reasonable
grounds,
he
shall
within
24
hours
request
a judge
to
issue
a
warrant
for
detention.
(d)
TAKING
BEFORE
A
DETENTION
JUDGE

The
public
prosecutor
then
takes
the
suspect
before
a judge
who
is
in
charge
of
detaining

arrested
suspects.
After
giving
the
suspect
an
opportunity
for
explanation,
the
detention
judge
considers
the
evidence
submitted
by
the
public
prosecutor
and
interrogates
the
suspect
if
necessary
to
decide
whether
or
not
there
are
reasonable
grounds
to

support
a
suspicion
of
guilt.
This
procedure
is
closed
to
the
public,
and
the
suspect
has
no
right
to
a public
hearing.
The
suspect
does
have
the
right
to
the
aid
of
counsel,
if
he
can
afford
to

obtain
one.
If
the
judge
finds
the
detention
both
necessary
and
supported
by
reasonable
grounds,
he
shall
issue
a
warrant
for
detention.
The
detained
suspect
may
request
the
judge
to
disclose
the
grounds
for
detention
in

open
court.
(e)
PUBLIC
PROSECUTORS'
INVESTIGATION
AND
ITS
CONCLUSION

Ordinarily
the
maximum
term
of
detention
at
this
stage
is
10
or
20
days.
Public
prosecutors
are
required
to
carry
out
their
investigations
within
this
period
and
to
decide
whether

or
not
there
is
sufficient
evidence
to
support
the
prosecution
of
the
detained
suspects.
If
they
are
convinced
of
the
guilt
of
their
suspects,
they
may
file
[Vol.
48
CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
IN
JAPAN

an
information
with
the
court

to
open
their
prosecution.
However
even
though
they
are
convinced
of
the
guilt
of
their
suspects,
they
may
nevertheless
drop
the
prosecution
by
refraining
from
filing
an
information,
if
they
find
that
such
a
course
of

action
is
called
for
by
reason
of
the
nature
and
circumstances
of
the
crime,
the
environmental
background
of
the
suspect,
or
the
possibility
of
his
rehabilitation.
A
statistical
survey
of
the
Ministry
of
Justice
revealed
that

as
of
1955
(from
January
to
Dec)
in
all
of
Japan
in
about
61%
of
all
major
cases
in
which
the
public
prosecutors
could
properly
open
their
formal'
prosecution
they
exercised
this
discretionary
power
and
refrained
from

prosecuting
an
information
for
one
or
more
of
the
foregoing
reasons.
Japan
does
not
have
any
such
system
as
the
grand
jury.
Since
1948,
however,
she
has
had
the
Kensatsu
Shinsakai,
the
Prosecution
Investigation
Committee
or
Inquest

of
Prosecution,
2

consisting
of
lay
people
chosen
by
lot
from
among
ordinary
citizens.
The
function
of
this
body
is
to
investigate
and
control
in
a democratic
and
advisory
way
the
discretionary
right
of
nonprosecution
which
has
been

given
to
the
public
prosecutors.
(f)
INFORMAL
PROCEEDINGS
FOR
MNIOR
CASES.

Public
prosecutors
may
institute
relatively
informal
criminal
actions
in
the
summary
courts
for
minor
crimes,
provided
that
the
defendants
make
no
objection
to
these
informal
proceedings.

The
courts
will
consider
and
decide
these
cases
summarily
on
documentary
and
real
evidence
submitted
by
the
public
prosecutors
without
opening
public
hearings
and
without
receiving
any
evidence
from
the
accused.
In
these
proceedings,
however,
sentences

heavier
than
a
fine
of
50,000
yen
(approximately
S139)
shall
not
be
imposed.
If
the
parties
who
are
not
content
with
the
sentences
summarily
imposed
demand
formal
trials
within
two
weeks
of
receipt
of
notice
of

the
sentences,
the
summary
sentence
will
be
set
aside
and
the
case
will
be
prosecuted
in
ordinary
proceedings.
Similarly,
minor
criminal
cases
involving
traffic
offences
which
shall
be
punished
with
fine
of
not
more
than
50,000
yen

may
be
tried
quickly
in
summary
courts
with
the
consent
of
the
defendants.
The
courts
will
open
public
trials
and
render
summary
sentences
pursuant
to
a
simple
and
speedy
procedure.
The
parties
who
are
not
content
with

the
sentences
imposed
may
demand
formal
trials
within
two
weeks
of
the
date
of
sentence.

Japan
Criminal Procedure

The nation's criminal justice officials follows specified legal procedures in dealing with offenders.
Once a suspect is arrested by national or prefectural police, the case is turned over to attorneys in
the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office, who are the government's sole agents in prosecuting
lawbreakers. Although 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. Prosecutors presented the government's case before judges in the
Supreme Court and the four types of lower courts: high courts, district courts, summary courts,
and family courts. Penal and probation officials administer programs for convicted offenders
under the direction of public prosecutors (see The Judicial System , ch. 6).
After identifying a suspect, police have the authority to exercise some discretion in determining
the next step. If, in cases pertaining to theft, the amount is small or already returned, the offense
petty, the victim unwilling to press charges, the act accidental, or the likelihood of a repetition not
great, the police can either drop the case or turn it over to a prosecutor. Reflecting the belief that

appropriate remedies are sometimes best found outside the formal criminal justice mechanisms, in
1990 over 70 percent of criminal cases were not sent to the prosecutor.
Police also exercise wide discretion in matters concerning juveniles. Police are instructed by law
to identify and counsel minors who appear likely to commit crimes, and they can refer juvenile
offenders and nonoffenders alike to child guidance centers to be treated on an outpatient basis.
Police can also assign juveniles or those considered to be harming the welfare of juveniles to
special family courts. These courts were established in 1949 in the belief that the adjustment of a
family's situation is sometimes required to protect children and prevent juvenile delinquency.
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.
Safeguards protect the suspects' rights. Police have to secure warrants to search for or seize
evidence. A warrant is also necessary for an arrest, although if the crime is very serious or the
perpetrator likely to flee, it can be obtained immediately after arrest. 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. Within another
twenty-four hours, the prosecutor has to go before a judge and present a case to obtain a detention
order. Suspects can be held for ten days (extensions were granted in special cases), pending an
investigation and a decision whether or not to prosecute. In the 1980s, some suspects were
reported to have been mistreated during this detention to exact a confession.
Prosecution can be denied on the grounds of insufficient evidence or on the prosecutor's
judgment. 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.
Institutional safeguards check the prosecutors' discretionary powers not to prosecute. Lay
committees are established in conjunction with branch courts to hold inquests on a prosecutor's
decisions. These committees meet four times yearly and can order that a case be reinvestigated
and prosecuted. Victims or interested parties can also appeal a decision not to prosecute.
Most offenses are tried first in district courts before one or three judges, depending on the severity
of the case. Defendants are protected from self-incrimination, forced confession, and unrestricted
admission of hearsay evidence. In addition, defendants have the right to counsel, public trial, and

cross-examination. Trial by jury was authorized by the 1923 Jury Law but was suspended in 1943.
It had not been reinstated as of 1993, chiefly owing to defendants' distrust of jurors, who were
believed to be emotional and easily influenced, and the generally greater public confidence in the
competence of judges.
The judge conducts the trial and is authorized to question witnesses, independently call for
evidence, decide guilt, and affix a sentence. The judge can also suspend any sentence or place a
convicted party on probation. Should a judgment of not guilty be rendered, the accused is entitled
to compensation by the state based on the number of days spent in detention.
Criminal cases from summary courts, family courts, and district courts can be appealed to the
high courts by both the prosecution and the defense. Criminal appeal to the Supreme Court is
limited to constitutional questions and a conflict of precedent between the Supreme Court and
high courts.
The criminal code sets minimum and maximum sentences for offenses to allow for the varying
circumstances of each crime and criminal. Penalties range from fines and short-term incarceration
to compulsory labor and the death penalty. Heavier penalties are meted out to repeat offenders.
Capital punishment consist of death by hanging and can be imposed on those convicted of leading
an insurrection, inducing or aiding foreign armed aggression, arson, or homicide.
Data as of January 1994

Sources of law

The National Diet is the national legislature, responsible for enacting new laws.
The present national authorities and legal system are constituted upon the adoption of the
Constitution of Japan in 1947. The Constitution contains thirty-three articles relating to human

rights and articles providing for the separation of powers vested into three independent bodies: the
Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.[12]
The National Diet is the bicameral supreme legislative body of Japan, consisting of the House of
Councillors (upper house) and House of Representatives (lower house). Article 41 of the
Constitution provides that "the Diet shall be the highest organ of State power, and shall be the sole
law-making organ of the State." Statutory law originates from the National Diet, with the
approval of the Emperor as a formality. Under the current constitution, the Emperor does not have
the power to veto or otherwise refuse to approve a law passed by the Diet.[13]
The judicial system of Japan consists of the Supreme Court, eight high courts and fifty district and
family courts. For more serious crimes long terms of confinement or possible death penalty in a
penal institution, 448 summary courts have jurisdiction.[12]

The Modern Japanese Legal System's Six Codes

The modernization of Japanese law by transplanting law from Western countries began after the
Meiji Restoration in 1868, in which the Japanese Emperor was officially restored to political
power.[14]
The first major legislation enacted in Japan was the Criminal Code of 1880, followed by the
Constitution of the Empire of Japan in 1889,[15] the Commercial Code, Criminal Procedure Act
and Civil Procedure Act in 1890 and the Civil Code in 1896 and 1898.[14] These were called the
roppo (six codes) and the term began to be used to mean the whole of Japan's statute law.[14] The
roppo thus included administrative law of both central and local government and international law
in the treaties and agreements of the new government under the emperor[14] (in addition to former
agreements with the United States and other countries, which had been entered into by the
Tokugawa Bakufu).[16]
The Six Codes are now:
1. The Civil Code ( Minp, 1896)
2. The Commercial Code ( Shh, 1899)
3. The Criminal Code ( Keih, 1907)
4. The Constitution of Japan ( Nippon-koku-kenp, 1946)
5. The Code of Criminal Procedure ( Keiji-sosh-h, 1948)
6. The Code of Civil Procedure ( Minji-sosh-h, 1996)
Japan, as with other Asian economies such as South Korea and Taiwan, has retained its
Commercial Code, but has chosen to enact numerous special laws as well as to amend the Code.

[17]

Japanese commercial law is also characterized by a relationship with the bureaucracy that is
important in determining how those engaged in commerce conduct business.[18]

Precedent
In the civil law system of Japan, judicial precedent provides non-binding guidance on how laws
should be interpreted in practice. Judges seriously consider precedent, especially any pertinent
Supreme Court decisions, thus making understanding of precedent essential to practice.[19]

Civil law
The Civil Code of Japan ( Minp, 1896) was created in 1896. It was heavily influenced by
the first draft of the German Civil Code and the French Civil Code.[20] The code is divided into
five books. Those on family and succession retain certain vestiges of the old patriarchal family
system that was the basis of Japanese feudalism. It was in these sections that most of the postwar
revisions were made. At that time it was considered no longer necessary or desirable to pay such
homage to the past, and the sections dealing with family law and succession were brought closer
to European civil law.[21] It has had a significant role in the development of civil law in several
East Asian nations including the Republic of Korea and the Republic of China (Taiwan). It
remained substantially unchanged even after the American occupation in 1945 except for the fifth
(family law) and sixth sections (inheritance law) which were fully revised during the occupation.

Contracts