Public Prosecutors and Police Review Hakamada Case

The Supreme Public Prosecutors Office and Shizuoka Prefectural Police Office released the review of Hakamada Case, in which Iwao Hakamada received sentence of death penalty and was proved innocent after the court found that the prosecutors and police fabricated evidences of crime. While the review does not dispute the court decision of innocence, the prosecutors and police refuse to conclude whether they fabricated the evidences. They accumulated excuses.

Hakamada was arrested and indicted with charge of murder in 1966 and sentenced to death in 1968. After retrials, the court overturned its decision of death penalty and found in 2024 that Hakamada was innocent, acknowledging that the evidences submitted by the police were fake. The public prosecutors and police abandoned appealing to higher court, and Hakamada’s innocence was fixed.

 

It was unusual for the public prosecutors and police to be determined that they had fabricated evidences of crime. It caused broad criticisms among the people in Japan. Those organizations of law enforcement were forced to explain what was wrong. The review focuses on three points: whether interviews to Hakamada was appropriate, fabrications were true or false, and why the process for starting retrials took long time.

 

The police confirmed that the policemen coerced Hakamada to confess, telling possibility of long detention and they even let him urinate in the room for interview. They found that the police had recorded conversation between Hakamada and his lawyer who visited the prison to meet Hakamada, which had been apparently illegal. They concluded that their interview had been made under inappropriate situation.

 

On the fabrication of evidence, the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office argued that fabrication “could not” be made. That is why, they argue, they did not draw a conclusion. However, “could not” does not mean “did not.” A review needs to find whether the prosecutors “did” or “did not” fabricate the evidences. A story that the prosecutors “could not” fabricate evidences is logically meaningless. The prosecutors escaped from their responsibility for finding a truth.

 

The prosecutors justified that it had taken a long time for investigation. That consumption of time caused significant delay of the retrial. While Hakamada repeatedly requested retrial, the public prosecutors disputed it, blocking the retiral. The prosecutors argued that it took a long time to assessing scientific evidences. It took forty-eight years since Hakamada’s arrest for the court to decide to start retrial.

 

With a regret on the court decision against the public prosecutors in Hakamada Case, Ministry of Justice decided to review the system of retrial. The ministry is going to make a consultation to the Legislative Council on the issue, expecting revision of the Code of Criminal Procedure which does not have enough provisions for retrial. While the code requires enough evidence for a retrial, they will make discussion on correctness of the requirement.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Amendment of Local Autonomy Law

Request for Final Nuclear Disposal Site

Not A Royal Wedding