Japan criminal justice and ethical tourism

BobTheCoward

Banned
B
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
22,789
Preface: before someone asks, I would strongly discourage tourism to my nation of citizenship.

Wife and I have discussed traveling to Japan. I vacillate if it is a good idea or not.

But is it ethical? The community here seems to generally take a dim view of Justice systems and coercion. Japan's system is probably unconscionable.

I feel like Japan should be on no-go lists. Do others agree?
 
I suspect that there are few places in the world that would not be objectionable to some people, and especially to persons whose attitude toward government is negative, and who tend toward doctrinal purity. But if you already believe where you are is no better, then what is the perceived harm in going? The greater argument might be against coming back.

Of course this is all a philosophical issue, since realistically the action of one tourist or a couple of tourists won't change the world, but assuming that one is thinking about categorical imperatives and stuff like that it has some content. If you can justify saying "don't go to North Korea or Burma," then it's at least worth thinking about where you might go. But if you are determined to look for faults you'll find them for sure, and if you overthink you'll end up nowhere.
 
bruto said:
I suspect that there are few places in the world that would not be objectionable to some people, and especially to persons whose attitude toward government is negative, and who tend toward doctrinal purity. But if you already believe where you are is no better, then what is the perceived harm in going? The greater argument might be against coming back.

Of course this is all a philosophical issue, since realistically the action of one tourist or a couple of tourists won't change the world, but assuming that one is thinking about categorical imperatives and stuff like that it has some content. If you can justify saying "don't go to North Korea or Burma," then it's at least worth thinking about where you might go. But if you are determined to look for faults you'll find them for sure, and if you overthink you'll end up nowhere.
Click to expand...

Do you think we can put these countries on a scale? If so, is Japan close to Burma, or is it closer to....Iceland?
 
Cavemonster said:
wat
Click to expand...

Exactly. I’m in Japan at the moment, and had not idea I was in a totalitarian hell hole. People here are putting on a great masquerade here being polite and self-effacing and all that . It is surely moments before the secret police break down my hotel room door and drag me out in chains.

You’re not thinking of North Korea, are you Bob?
 
lionking said:
Exactly. I’m in Japan at the moment, and had not idea I was in a totalitarian hell hole. People here are putting on a great masquerade here being polite and self-effacing and all that . It is surely moments before the secret police break down my hotel room door and drag me out in chains.

You’re not thinking of North Korea, are you Bob?
Click to expand...


This part

Confessions are often obtained after long periods of questioning by police as those arrested may be held for up to 23 days. This can, at times, take weeks during which time the suspect is in detention and can be prevented from contacting a lawyer or family....[10]


In October 2007, the BBC published a feature giving examples and an overview of "'Forced confessions' in Japan".[13] The case was called "Shibushi Case".[14] In addition, Hiroshi Yanagihara, who was convicted in November 2002 for attempted rape and rape due to forced confession and the identification by the victim despite an alibi based on the phone record, was cleared in October 2007 when the true culprit was arrested for an unrelated crime.[15] The two cases damage the credibility of Japanese Police.[16]

To Japanese citizens and police, however, the arrest itself already creates the presumption of guilt which needs only to be verified via a confession.[10] The interrogation reports prepared by police and prosecutors and submitted to the trial courts often constitute the central evidence considered when weighing the guilt or innocence of the suspect.[17]
Click to expand...

ETA: if you were taken into custody for a crime you did not commit, you could be held for 23 days, interrogated 10 hours a day, and abused

Interrogators sometimes ram tables into a suspect, stamp on his feet or shout in his ears. Interviews can last for eight hours or more. Suspects are deprived of sleep and forced into physically awkward positions. Few people can withstand such treatment. "Not being able to sleep was the hardest for me," says Kazuo Ishikawa, who held out for 30 days before signing a confession he couldn’t read (he was illiterate at the time) to a murder he says he didn’t commit.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Do you think we can put these countries on a scale? If so, is Japan close to Burma, or is it closer to....Iceland?
Click to expand...
I think if you want to you can. If you are even bringing the question up as specific to the country and not to the question of tourism in general, then you're doing so, even if incompletely. As to where on the scale a country is, it depends on your issues and values.
 
EHocking said:
I guess I better cancel my trip to the US. Their human rights record is appalling- and that’s just what they do to their own citizens let alone those non-merkins they illegally rendition and torture.
Click to expand...

That is my recommendation.
 
bruto said:
I think if you want to you can. If you are even bringing the question up as specific to the country and not to the question of tourism in general, then you're doing so, even if incompletely. As to where on the scale a country is, it depends on your issues and values.
Click to expand...

As a skeptical community, I think coerced confessions would be particularly troublesome according to the values of many here.that is why I asked here and not somewhere else. Maybe I'm reading the situation wrong.
 
Applying what seem to be Bob’s criteria would have you boycotting pretty much all of Asia, certainly all of Africa, much of Europe, all of South America and even the US. Pacific Islands probably miss out, Australia detains unauthorised arrivals so out it goes.

Enjoy Canada, New Zealand and part of Scandinavia Bob.

Very silly thread.
 
lionking said:
Applying what seem to be Bob’s criteria would have you boycotting pretty much all of Asia, certainly all of Africa, much of Europe, all of South America and even the US. Pacific Islands probably miss out, Australia detains unauthorised arrivals so out it goes.

Enjoy Canada, New Zealand and part of Scandinavia Bob.

Very silly thread.
Click to expand...

Why is that silly? If those are the ethical places, then those are the ethical places.

Ethical living often comes with inconvenience

ETA: Benin....is there anything wrong with Benin?

ETA2: And Australia is out for the treatment of the indigenous population.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
As a skeptical community, I think coerced confessions would be particularly troublesome according to the values of many here.that is why I asked here and not somewhere else. Maybe I'm reading the situation wrong.
Click to expand...
Sure, it's troublesome, and the question ends up being how troublesome and how much more troublesome than anyplace else. I don't know enough about the situation to evaluate it, but as Lionking notes, I think it would be very hard to find any place without something you find a problem. The question ends up how troublesome it is to you, and how much of a difference it makes to you. As I said earlier, I think there are some places that are so bad that it seems reasonable to avoid them, and a few where one can at least have some reservations, but where you draw the line depends entirely on yourself.

I don't mean entirely to be facetious, but if you're going to parse this all too finely, you'd better think twice about going anywhere, because your rules are likely to prevent you from re-entering our blighted land.
 
bruto said:
Sure, it's troublesome, and the question ends up being how troublesome and how much more troublesome than anyplace else. I don't know enough about the situation to evaluate it, but as Lionking notes, I think it would be very hard to find any place without something you find a problem. The question ends up how troublesome it is to you, and how much of a difference it makes to you. As I said earlier, I think there are some places that are so bad that it seems reasonable to avoid them, and a few where one can at least have some reservations, but where you draw the line depends entirely on yourself.

I don't mean entirely to be facetious, but if you're going to parse this all too finely, you'd better think twice about going anywhere, because your rules are likely to prevent you from re-entering our blighted land.
Click to expand...

And I'm wondering if Japan falls into the "so bad" category for people here.
 
I’m a little confused by the idea that living ethically apparently involves never going anywhere that isn’t 100% ethical. Can’t see why that would be.
 
Seismosaurus said:
I’m a little confused by the idea that living ethically apparently involves never going anywhere that isn’t 100% ethical. Can’t see why that would be.
Click to expand...

That is a bit of a leap. I'm not accusing Japan of being less than 100% ethical. I'm accusing them of very heinous behavior and fundamental human rights violations.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Preface: before someone asks, I would strongly discourage tourism to my nation of citizenship.

Wife and I have discussed traveling to Japan. I vacillate if it is a good idea or not.

But is it ethical? The community here seems to generally take a dim view of Justice systems and coercion. Japan's system is probably unconscionable.

I feel like Japan should be on no-go lists. Do others agree?
Click to expand...

I think that if you want to maximize the value of your vacation, you should go to Japan, and feel bad about it.
 
Trebuchet said:
Apparently Japan's justice system is unconscionable. And, IIRC, BTC lives in Arizona. Home of Sheriff Joe.
Click to expand...

It is unethical to visit or live in the United States already.

ETA: your post makes little sense. What does me living in Arizona have to do with anything?
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Applying what seem to be Bob’s criteria would have you boycotting pretty much all of Asia, certainly all of Africa, much of Europe, all of South America and even the US. Pacific Islands probably miss out, Australia detains unauthorised arrivals so out it goes.

Enjoy Canada, New Zealand and part of Scandinavia Bob.

Very silly thread.
Click to expand...


Why is it silly?

I had Bob on my ignore list for a while. I just needed a rest. But this is a fair question, if Japan's justice system is troublesome should we boycott it? What other countries are as bad or worse? Where is that line drawn? They seem reasonable questions.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It is unethical to visit or live in the United States already.

ETA: your post makes little sense. What does me living in Arizona have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

As far as anyone can discern, everything is unethical under your standards. And to paraphrase The Incredibles, when everything is unethical, nothing is unethical. Staying in the US is unethical, going to Japan is unethical. So what difference does it make?
 
Ziggurat said:
As far as anyone can discern, everything is unethical under your standards. And to paraphrase The Incredibles, when everything is unethical, nothing is unethical. Staying in the US is unethical, going to Japan is unethical. So what difference does it make?
Click to expand...

I posted this topic because it seems really really bad under a lot of standards.
 
Last edited:
If one just wants to avoid association with "bad" companies, countries etc. That's really an aesthetic concern, not an ethical one.

I do have some things I prefer not to associate with, but it's not because of any sense of purity, it's an aesthetic preference. For instance, certain filmmakers who have acted in terrible ways. Their actions stick with me and make it difficult to enjoy their films. But again, that's an aesthetic preference. It doesn't compel me to any consistency in the movies I watch and it certainly doesn't constitute a moral argument that I could tell others they must abstain.

Boycott is something different. Boycotting is mostly an attempt to change the incentive structure so that it is in a company's (or I suppose country's) best economic interest to do what you would like. Or else it is part of a wider strategy to get visibility to change the incentive structure so that it is in a politician/party's best interest (retaining or gaining votes) to do what you would like.

But at it's root's boycott is a pragmatic strategy. So for me to decide not to travel to Japan as a boycott, it would need to be part of a well organized, and highly publicized, specifically targeted effort. That effort would need to exert a specific range of economic pressure that could be reasonably predicted to at least possibly tilt the relevant politician's self interest so that whatever they get out of their current policies of police tactics is outweighed by their loss of electability because of the anger at the lost tourism dollars.

Without that structure in place, a moratorium on travel is pretty much an aesthetic gesture. I suppose I don't hold it against anyone who chooses to make that gesture, but I don't have any need to myself.

Funny enough, I'm headed to Japan on Monday for my first trip to Asia. Strange thread timing. Maybe I'll bump into Lionking there.
 
Cavemonster said:
If one just wants to avoid association with "bad" companies, countries etc. That's really an aesthetic concern, not an ethical one.

I do have some things I prefer not to associate with, but it's not because of any sense of purity, it's an aesthetic preference. For instance, certain filmmakers who have acted in terrible ways. Their actions stick with me and make it difficult to enjoy their films. But again, that's an aesthetic preference. It doesn't compel me to any consistency in the movies I watch and it certainly doesn't constitute a moral argument that I could tell others they must abstain.

Boycott is something different. Boycotting is mostly an attempt to change the incentive structure so that it is in a company's (or I suppose country's) best economic interest to do what you would like. Or else it is part of a wider strategy to get visibility to change the incentive structure so that it is in a politician/party's best interest (retaining or gaining votes) to do what you would like.

But at it's root's boycott is a pragmatic strategy. So for me to decide not to travel to Japan as a boycott, it would need to be part of a well organized, and highly publicized, specifically targeted effort. That effort would need to exert a specific range of economic pressure that could be reasonably predicted to at least possibly tilt the relevant politician's self interest so that whatever they get out of their current policies of police tactics is outweighed by their loss of electability because of the anger at the lost tourism dollars.

Without that structure in place, a moratorium on travel is pretty much an aesthetic gesture. I suppose I don't hold it against anyone who chooses to make that gesture, but I don't have any need to myself.

Funny enough, I'm headed to Japan on Monday for my first trip to Asia. Strange thread timing. Maybe I'll bump into Lionking there.
Click to expand...

Did you know this was how it functioned over there? Does it affect.your opinion of the place?
 
Confessions are often obtained after long periods of questioning by police as those arrested may be held for up to 23 days. This can, at times, take weeks during which time the suspect is in detention and can be prevented from contacting a lawyer or family....
Click to expand...
In which countries can we expect this to not happen at all?

I traveled to Japan several times, it is relatively safe in my opinion. I felt safer in the USA for various reason I will not get into here.

Ranb
 
Last edited:
If you want the opinion of an American who has lived in Japan since 2001, while I agree with you that the Justice system here is somewhat questionable, I don't think it's so terrible as to make visiting Japan unethical. It's not used as a tool for political oppression, for example, like in Russia or China.

There's a number of "freedom indices" run by various groups.

For example, the CATO Institute (along with the Fraser Institute, and the Liberales Institut at the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom) has the Human Freedom Index. Japan scores 8.1 on the index. For comparison the UK is 8.5 on the same index and the US is 8.39. China is 5.91, considerably lower than Japan. (I don't know if the situation with the Uyghurs factors into China's score at all, since it is a sort of new development). Even Mexico is 6.85, which is lower than Japan's score.
 
Last edited:
Ranb said:
In which countries can we expect this to not happen at all?

I traveled to Japan several times, it is relatively safe in my opinion. I felt safer in the USA for various reason I will not get into here.

Ranb
Click to expand...

I think it happens to people who don't know their rights even in the US. There are some rights that you have to know and understand to take full advantage of. You have a right to a lawyer, and the right to remain silent, but you'd be surprised how many people don't use those rights when questioned by the police.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Did you know this was how it functioned over there? Does it affect.your opinion of the place?
Click to expand...

I've heard some other critiques of Japanese law enforcement.

But "opinion of the place" is a pretty broad concept. I was just in Arizona about a week ago and they have a history of some truly terrible law enforcement practices. But when I think of my generalized opinion of Arizona, my enjoyment of the people, the cultural institutions I worked with, the food and art I experienced all rise to mind before the policing issues. I suppose on a very broad level it gives me some opinions about the existence of enough voters to let that sort of thing happen, but one could apply the same thinking to the US as a whole.

I still think the US is a great place too, even though I'm aware that something like 1/3 of the population is supporting a terrible administration. There are so many facets and factions to most places that assigning a single opinion doesn't make sense to me unless the whole country is a horrific fascist hellscape.
 
Cavemonster said:
I've heard some other critiques of Japanese law enforcement.

But "opinion of the place" is a pretty broad concept. I was just in Arizona about a week ago and they have a history of some truly terrible law enforcement practices. But when I think of my generalized opinion of Arizona, my enjoyment of the people, the cultural institutions I worked with, the food and art I experienced all rise to mind before the policing issues. I suppose on a very broad level it gives me some opinions about the existence of enough voters to let that sort of thing happen, but one could apply the same thinking to the US as a whole.

I still think the US is a great place too, even though I'm aware that something like 1/3 of the population is supporting a terrible administration. There are so many facets and factions to most places that assigning a single opinion doesn't make sense to me unless the whole country is a horrific fascist hellscape.
Click to expand...

Enjoyment of people? That is true for a good chunk of bad people I have met, too.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Enjoyment of people? That is true for a good chunk of bad people I have met, too.
Click to expand...

I suppose one might enjoy the company of "bad" people.

I don't normally devote a lot of my time assigning a level of "badness" to places. I don't see a need.
 
I really don't understand what visiting a place has to do with the ethics or lack thereof of the place's government. Is the worry that by spending money there you are in some way contributing to the immoral acts?

In the case of Japan the train of cause and effect is so stretched that that just seems implausible to me.

Is it some other concern? If so, what? Because I can't even come up with anything else.
 
Roboramma said:
I really don't understand what visiting a place has to do with the ethics or lack thereof of the place's government. Is the worry that by spending money there you are in some way contributing to the immoral acts?

In the case of Japan the train of cause and effect is so stretched that that just seems implausible to me.

Is it some other concern? If so, what? Because I can't even come up with anything else.
Click to expand...

Why would cause and effect matter?
 
BobTheCoward said:
Why would cause and effect matter?
Click to expand...

Well, it does sometimes. If for instance I know that shooting someone will kill them, then I can consider myself morally culpable for their death if I go ahead and do that.

In this case, I have no idea why you think it would be unethical to go to Japan. I threw out the most reasonable idea I could think of, but even that didn't make much sense to me.

Could you maybe just explain why you think your travelling to Japan would be ethical?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom