December 26, 2010
Akahata editorial (excerpts)
Without showing remorse for misconduct, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office released a report about the results of an internal probe of a case in which a special investigation unit of the Osaka District Public Prosecutors’ Office had tampered with evidence regarding the postal discount abuse case.
In the report, the nation’s top prosecutors’ office admitted, “Leading questions had been used to compile depositions that were not consistent with the objective evidence and facts.” However, it still refuses to introduce a policy to videotape interrogations.
Putting importance on hypotheses rather than seeking facts
A senior prosecutor introduces a hypothesis in regard to a case when prosecutors launch an investigation. During the investigation, if prosecutors collect evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, they will ignore such evidence. They are reluctant to take depositions which do not support their hypothesis. In order to obtain satisfactory confessions from their suspects, they use questionable methods and tricks. Even the internal inspection by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, which is usually criticized for being indulgent toward fellow prosecutors, highlights deep-rooted problems in the investigation process.
That’s why it is necessary to review methods of investigation by requiring prosecutors’ offices to accurately record the interrogation process on video or audio formats to verify that the confessions were not coerced.
Special unit prosecutors always claim that they put top priority on depositions because they investigate and prosecute white-collar crimes committed by politicians, high-level bureaucrats, and businesspeople. After a scandal revealing fabricated evidence occurs, the prosecutors still insist that if “interrogations performed by special units are videotaped, their investigations into specific crimes will be obstructed.”
Investigative authorities, whether in police departments or prosecutors’ offices are required to investigate crimes in an appropriate manner based on evidence obtained in a legal manner.
It is inappropriate for prosecutors to concentrate their efforts on obtaining statements from a suspect behind closed doors.
The Supreme Prosecutors’ Office announced that it will videotape portions of the interrogation process. However, there is a possibility that prosecutors will videotape only confessions advantageous to them and use these as evidence to support their hypotheses. With making the total questioning procedure verifiable, videotaping interrogations will be useful in bringing about appropriate investigation procedures.
Without showing remorse for misconduct, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office released a report about the results of an internal probe of a case in which a special investigation unit of the Osaka District Public Prosecutors’ Office had tampered with evidence regarding the postal discount abuse case.
In the report, the nation’s top prosecutors’ office admitted, “Leading questions had been used to compile depositions that were not consistent with the objective evidence and facts.” However, it still refuses to introduce a policy to videotape interrogations.
Putting importance on hypotheses rather than seeking facts
A senior prosecutor introduces a hypothesis in regard to a case when prosecutors launch an investigation. During the investigation, if prosecutors collect evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, they will ignore such evidence. They are reluctant to take depositions which do not support their hypothesis. In order to obtain satisfactory confessions from their suspects, they use questionable methods and tricks. Even the internal inspection by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, which is usually criticized for being indulgent toward fellow prosecutors, highlights deep-rooted problems in the investigation process.
That’s why it is necessary to review methods of investigation by requiring prosecutors’ offices to accurately record the interrogation process on video or audio formats to verify that the confessions were not coerced.
Special unit prosecutors always claim that they put top priority on depositions because they investigate and prosecute white-collar crimes committed by politicians, high-level bureaucrats, and businesspeople. After a scandal revealing fabricated evidence occurs, the prosecutors still insist that if “interrogations performed by special units are videotaped, their investigations into specific crimes will be obstructed.”
Investigative authorities, whether in police departments or prosecutors’ offices are required to investigate crimes in an appropriate manner based on evidence obtained in a legal manner.
It is inappropriate for prosecutors to concentrate their efforts on obtaining statements from a suspect behind closed doors.
The Supreme Prosecutors’ Office announced that it will videotape portions of the interrogation process. However, there is a possibility that prosecutors will videotape only confessions advantageous to them and use these as evidence to support their hypotheses. With making the total questioning procedure verifiable, videotaping interrogations will be useful in bringing about appropriate investigation procedures.
