Silvia Croydon, The politics of police detention in Japan: consensus of convenience

Abstract

The politics of police detention in Japan: consensus of convenience, Silvia Croydon, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016, 211pp., GBP ?69 (hardback), ISBN: 0198758340The Japanese police detention system - 'daiyo kangoku' (the literal translation meaning 'substitute prison') - has attracted much criticism both domestically and internationally.1 Under Japanese law, a suspect can be detained for up to 23 days without being charged. Croydon explains at the beginning of her book that the length of detention for suspects to be held without charge is 'the longest amongst developed nations - as much as eight times more than is typical'.2The Politics of the Police Detention in Japan: Consensus of Convenience provides an authoritative account of how the Japanese pre-charge detention system has been legitimised. It does so by looking historically from the post-war occupation of Japan under Allied Forces to the expansion of the use of pre-charge detention by the National Police Agency. The book also draws on extensive interviews with past Ministers of Justice and other politicians, the Ministry of Justice officials, the National Police Agency officials, judges, prosecutors, lawyers and civil society representatives. Croydon uses these interviews effectively to illuminate the complex politics behind the pre-charge detention system. To my knowledge, The Politics of the Police Detention in Japan: Consensus of Convenience is the first historical and empirical investigation into how Japan's pre-charge detention developed and grew, and why it has managed to resist reforms to offer more protection for suspects.Croydon starts, in Chapter One, by highlighting the problems associated with the system. She quotes official figures from 2010 illustrating that suspects are held on average just over 26 days before they are released or charged. Going beyond the 23-day detention period is permissible because the rule is applicable per charge. Therefore if a suspect is charged for multiple crimes, the length of detention without charge is 'potentially indefinite'.3 Criticism also extends to other areas of pre-charge detention. Court-appointed lawyers are only available for suspects likely to be charged with serious crimes punishable by death or imprisonment of three years or more. Even for suspects detained for such serious crimes, however, lawyers cannot be present during the first three days of detention. There is no legal requirement for interrogations to be fully recorded, and pre-indictment police bail is also not available.If these conditions are not convincing enough to conclude that the Japanese pre-charge detention model is typical of what Herbert Packer called the 'crime-control model', as opposed to a 'due process model',4 the following information may persuade the reader otherwise. The majority of suspects (98 per cent) are held in police cells under the full responsibility of the National Police Agency, rather than in official detention centres under the Ministry of Justice.5 This means the police are in total control of the suspects even when they are not being interrogated from when they are given meals to when they go to sleep. The long period of detention under police control, with limited procedural safeguards, has been described as a 'confession-extraction system'6 often associated with wrongful convictions. Confessions play a significant role in Japanese criminal trials. Defendants confess to crimes in more than 90 per cent of cases, and Japan's 99 per cent conviction rate is one of the most infamous features of its justice system. Criminal justice professionals may take the view that the extremely high conviction rate is the result of the tenacious - and long - investigations by the police, coupled with prosecution's careful selection of cases actually going to court (40 per cent of cases).Scholars7 on the other hand have taken a critical stance against the Japanese pre-charge detention system. Croydon8 in her book takes a different approach - or perhaps makes a political decision - and limits herself to the claim that there is an 'increased potential for abuse'. …