Seems like it's not pleasant, and the author says in theory it could be as low of a bar as getting into a heated argument; but the author never discloses his actual charge, which I think is critical context.
If he stabbed someone and got this treatment, it would be very different than if he had a loud but normal argument you might see in any big box store in the US.
That he doesn't go on to protest why he got locked up makes me think it was something more serious.
Some time ago (can't easily find it anymore) there was a expose on UK prisons, which was interesting without even knowing what crime the prisoner was convicted of, but turns out it was abuse of a relative.
But essentially, somebody else sent her a package with something illegal in it that she didn't ask for. The police took her passport for a few months and searched her house. After a few months, she got her passport returned to her, she left Japan temporarily, but when she came back, they arrested her "to ensure [she] wouldn't flee while they finished the investigation".
She also mentioned it was "the most normal type of thing you can think of"; it might have been something like pseudoephedrine/Sudafed. That's a common over-the-counter drug in other countries but it's very illegal here in Japan (unless it's under 10%, or you buy it from Japan)!
Edit: Importing pseudoephedrine above 10% concentrations is illegal, but you can legally buy some higher concentrations over-the-counter while in Japan.
> somebody else sent her a package with something illegal in it that she didn't ask for.
> She also mentioned it was "the most normal type of thing you can think of";
This doesn't really answer the question, though. It's frustrating to try to interpret these stories with a lot of writing and video describing everything except the crucial detail about what the charges were for.
I don't think she's trying to withhold information to avoid contaminating the case because she's spilling other details all over the place that could be used to influence the case. Yet the key piece of information that is supposedly "the most normal" isn't revealed
> It's frustrating to try to interpret these stories with a lot of writing and video describing everything except the crucial detail about what the charges were for.
Is it really a crucial detail though? As someone having lived in Japan for a long time, I see no reason why we can not discuss the fact that civil rights and detention treatment in Japan are lacking without resorting to "Do they deserve it in light of what they were suspected for?". I personally see no reason why suspects can not deserve decent sleep, meal, bedding, etc. even if they may be Shoko Asahara himself.
For the record, I have not watched any video or read anything else about this individual. Nor do I intend to.
Fair I suppose. I guess one can treat this either as a personal story (although frustratingly scattered across multiple places and incomplete) or as a description of a single instance of an arrest in Japan.
It is? Because the whole ‘is it awful’ thing hinges pretty strongly on how many options you were given to avoid it before going there.
If I had the police over, was an ass, had them come back, was an ass again. Then at some point they’re going to just think I’m the person that’d run away while they conduct their investigation.
I’m sure bad policemen exist in Japan, but all the ones I’ve met have been very friendly and reasonable.
Skimming the video there's also important unstated context that the person was non-white foreigner, had tattoos, and on visa. It's possible that the combination made an ambiguous grey-area situation much worse.
Likely some sort of stimulant as you point out. It is hardly the first time either as there have been public cases like this numerous times over the last two decades. Some cases even ending with deportation. The one I remember most vividly was someone carrying an unlabeled bottle of ADHD medication that had been sent to them while they were in South Korea by their pharmacist mum in the US; that they then ran afoul of when entering Japan. Similarly, there was a case at the University of Tokyo in the 00s, where an overseas student got sent an (allegedly) unprompted package with cannabis (not a stimulant though) from friends abroad. Allegedly, they were expelled and we got university-wide, anti-drug campaigns with memorable slogans like: "Illicit drugs are illegal".
Due to their history, laws regarding stimulants are harsher in Japan than in many other places in the world [1] and this frequently takes people by surprise. Not that Japanese laws related to illegal drugs are lenient to begin with.
You can still easily buy it here, but the over-the-counter pills are always mixed with other ingredients to make it more difficult to convert them into amphetamines.
E.g. Contac 600 Plus can be found in basically all drug stores and it has 120mg of Pseudoephedrine, 100mg Caffeine, 8mg Chlorpheniramine, and 0.4mg of Belladonna Extract. It sounds like it'll actually be illegal to import into Japan, since 120/(120 + 100 + 8 + 0.4) is over 10%, but I've previously just walked into a drug store and bought a packet.
They _do_ specifically protest, and it's crazy that they're able to detain you like this from an accusation while they build a case, even if you're innocent. In the US, barring flight risks and past history or cases of real malice or violence or an ongoing threat, you can at least typically make bail, AND the conditions in a jail are generally far better and less strict than this:
>Both cases were ultimately dropped and the second arrest was essentially tied to the first and shouldn’t have even been possible. But because of how the system works weather it’s a viable reason or not, they can still trap you in there for a time while the case is being reviewed. I met others who where there for shorter and much longer periods of time. The worst part was knowing i was innocent. After it’s all said and done you walk out and they act as if nothing happened. Not only was this was all extremely traumatizing but it cost me a HUGE of money that I really did not have and caused irreversible damage to my life.
> In the US, barring flight risks and past history or cases of real malice or violence or an ongoing threat, you can at least typically make bail
The literal majority of people in US jails are there not because they have been convicted of anything but because they were given a bail amount they couldn’t afford to pay, which is a deliberate strategy by the courts when there is no justification to refuse bail. This can look like a $500 cash bail set on a homeless guy charged with resisting arrest (aka being arrested). Many of them are innocent and are trapped and have their lives ruined in exactly the way this guy describes. (We assume that many of them are innocent because when someone pays their bail, more than 50% of cases are simply dismissed as soon as they leave jail. The expectation is that they will just plead guilty because otherwise they are stuck in jail for months waiting for a trial).
> We assume that many of them are innocent because when someone pays their bail, more than 50% of cases are simply dismissed as soon as they leave jail.
The legal system doesn't have the resources to move forward with the case and decides it isn't a priority. I've seen this happen many times with people I know committing violent felonies.
Even for smaller examples it happens all the time. Half the time you can completely get out of traffic tickets by showing up to court to plead not guilty. They dismiss the case because it's not worth the time.
> They dismiss the case because it's not worth the time.
I don't know what this means in the context of the US justice system. They're not paid on commission. They're being paid to be there no matter what happens.
They dismiss the case because the cop didn't bother to show up, or they didn't have any evidence against your defense. The reason you (as the person who got ticketed) don't show up to court is because you know you have nothing to say, or because it's not worth it to you when getting out of the ticket isn't enough pay for 3-4 hours of your time. The only reason you do show up is because you think you have a defense.
If you can't make bail, you're showing up no matter how stupid the charge is.
edit: I have personal experience (from a few decades ago) of being forced to face stupid charges. It was a game. They inflated the potential sentence to 3-5 years through silly charges designed for just that, and offered me a plea bargain of no time, no fine, and expungement from my record in 6 months. I pled guilty. If I hadn't been bailed out, I would have had to wait two weeks in jail for that moronic, depressing event. I pled guilty because it was easy to do, even if I hadn't done anything. If I had sat in jail for two weeks, I might have pled guilty even if it involved a week of jail time and a fine, just to get out.
Kalief Browder spent almost 3 years in Riker's Island awaiting trial just to have the charges dropped. People on here told me that showed that the justice system worked. I said that his life was destroyed by this, and he would probably end up dead soon. I got downvoted furiously. He'd killed himself 2 years later.
> If he stabbed someone and got this treatment, it would be very different
I dont think so. I think innocent until proven guilty is the right way to go. Because all the police know is that he is accused of stabbing someone. Whether he actually did it or not, a court of law will decide that while he is present to be tried. Until then You cant punish someone like this over an accusation. You can deny bail if the person might be dangerous, but you cant punish them
This is bullshit and the japanese should be ashamed of having such a system while being considered a part of the civilized world. If this was china people would be rightfully losing their mind
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean someone gets to go free until their court date. It depends on the crime, the flight risk, and the supporting evidence that police are able to collect.
There are many examples of police letting suspects go due to lack of evidence and then later discovering they let the wrong person go. These stories generate a lot of outrage in cases where there's public interest or a news story, but this is the reality of crime: You don't always have enough evidence to justify detaining someone, but the police's job is to quickly try to find enough evidence to find the right perpetrator
The thing is, this is pretty standard treatment over in Japan. As the blog poster says, the charge against them was ultimately dropped, but not before they were held for over 30 days. The 23 day timer on charges is, as they said, something that is often exploited by the police; they can add charges later to reset the clock. While this is going on, you're often pressured to sign a confession. You may get offered a comparatively short or lenient punishment for confessing, as compared to potentially months of detention while the police perform their investigation and decide what to charge you with. It's a big part of why the conviction rate over there is so high; not confessing to a crime, even when innocent, can carry a punishment worse than conviction. Of course, then you have to consider that you now have a criminal record, so someone who lives in Japan may feel pressured to confess to avoid prolonged detention, but that can have other effects on them in the future.
Same in the USA. This is what “prosecutor deals” are for: plead guilty and we’ll let you off with a year in jail, make us hold a trial and the judge will give you ten years.
Right, but I intentionally avoided making that comparison because of the way the US justice system works. There are more escape hatches for someone who has been charged to be released while awaiting trial: bail, release on recognizance, habeas petitions, etc. These don't really exist in the same way in Japan.
In the US, it's seen as a God-given truth that no innocent person should ever be punished. Partly because it was founded (in part) by oppressed minorities fleeing states where the were constantly harassed by authorities. (Irony - the US's approach hardly fixed the issue).
But is it OK to risk punishing a few innocent people if it greatly reduces the amount of suffering caused by crime?
> Partly because it was founded (in part) by oppressed minorities fleeing states where the were constantly harassed by authorities
Nah, it's a principle that was brought in from English common law. E.g Blackstone's Ratio[0] was published at roughly the same time as the American revolution was playing out, and cited plenty of earlier formulations of the same principle. Habeas Corpus was codified in the Magna Carta, but predated it as a concept.
> In the US, it's seen as a God-given truth that no innocent person should ever be punished.
In the US, just as in Japan, as soon as you are arrested they begin punishing you. If there were a real assumption of innocence, jail would be pleasant and comfortable, and if you were WFH you wouldn't miss a day. There is a material presumption of guilt, even if there's some sort of ethereal theoretical presumption of innocence.
Instead, you're in a horrible cell, eating horrible food, dressed in a humiliating way, treated in a humiliating way, and exposed to dangerous people. Unless you can pay a bond which you will never get back (because you are too poor to pay bail.) You haven't been convicted of anything. The fine you're facing might be lower than your bond, and the time you're facing might be shorter than the time you'd have to wait in jail to go to court.
Back in the 19th century. De Tocqueville talks about American justice favouring the rich since they could post bail and the poor could not. I have seen documentaries about US bail hostels and some of them seem like horrific places as bad as prisons in some other countries and this is before you've been found guilty of anything.
It's actually not. You can be arrested and then released without charges, which is not a conviction but does not factor into the conviction rate statistic.
I was going to say the same thing. OP in this case would not count toward either percentage, what you have to wonder is how many people get charges dropped who get put through the ringer.
It also makes the act of accusing incredibly powerful, and you have to wonder what threshold there is and whose accusations matter, because this severe punishment for dropped charges feels extremely powerful.
Arrested is not the same as convicted. I lived in Japan for a few years, and I have heard of similar situations to what the article describes.
In Japan you can be arrested while an investigation is in process, only afterwards you will be indicted. Additionally, Japan does not permit defendants to post bail prior to an indictment.
Yes Japan has a really high conviction rate, but that is because they indict only cases were a conviction is likely.
Arrests don't need to lead to the person being indicted.
Not sure why you were downvoted. From the last paragraph:
"I spent a total of 35 days here. The first arrest was 3 days of processing, the initial 10 days followed by the 10 days extension for a total of 23 days before my case was dropped. But the same time my case was dropped my accusers found a another reason to issue a second arrest keeping me there for an additional 12 days!
Both cases were ultimately dropped and the second arrest was essentially tied to the first and shouldn’t have even been possible."
For those interested, here is the YouTube channel of the author. She has several videos about her experience. I used to watch her channel, and after reading this article (although she never mentions her name), I clicked through a few more of her posts, and saw her photo and immediately recognized the name. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=175yRhSaNfU
This sounds bad enough that it makes me wonder what the punishment for breaking the rules in jail is. If you can't sleep in a certain direction, what are they going to do if you refuse to obey? Or even can't obey because you don't speak Japanese?
Breaking rules in US prisons leads to solitary confinement. I'm assuming there's something similar in Japanese prisons, although the conditions sound like they can't get much worse...
I can't logically think of any other lawfully worse punishment than what was described in the article. I don't know what they'd do for breaking rules in these situations, to be honest.
And what do you have to say to teenage girls or even little kid girls getting raped?
Being laxist towards criminals is not just being cruel to the victims to me: to me it is downright complicity with the criminals.
BTW: Japan happens to be one of the safest country on earth. A friend who's a pilot told me: "Tokyo is the only city in the world where I've women from my team (mostly air hostesses but also female pilot or co-pilot) go for a run at 3am". Now he didn't fly to every city in the world but I can name a great many cities where a fit woman won't go joking in yoga pants at 3am. And so can he.
Japan's judicial system has something like a 99% conviction rate. It's "safe" because they swipe up every single criminal they can, plus a bunch of random people in the process. So everyone is naturally going to be on their best behavior.
The United States federal conviction rate is essentially identical to the Japanese judicial conviction rate when measured by the same methodology. It's roughly 99.6-99.8% depending on the year.
That's the advice I give to anyone traveling internationally. You get treated a lot differently when you wear khaki slacks and an Oxford shirt (more professional rather than stylish) - even if you're wearing sneakers.
The more bland the colors, the more you blend in and easier it is to flow through places.
Or dont go to an authoritarian state where something like this is accepted. Im astounded at people defending this. If it was china people would see this is messed up
There is nothing about Japan that suggests otherwise. One example being whether you agree with capital punishment or not, their method of never giving you advance notice is torture, for both the prisoner and their family.
another thing in Japan is that you can get arrested for self defence. Say if someone starts attacking you on the street, and eg. you punch back causing an injury, when you could have simply ran away and escaped, then you can get arrested and held for 23 days as a suspect.
So say if someone shoves you on a subway in Tokyo, do not ever shove back or do anything worse. Move away, get witnesses / evidence if you can, then report.
Oh, and other things that can get you arrested:
- Not promptly returning someone's lost property such as a wallet
- A review about a business that damaged their reputation, even if it was true (but you don't have 100% evidence). eg. "I got food poisoning from here"
Something as small as getting into a heated argument in public, accidentally taking an item you didn’t pay for, overstaying a visa, or even grabbing someone else’s umbrella or bike thinking it was yours can escalate further than you could imagine and have you arrested before you’ve even had a chance to explain.
Is this actually true or just fearmongering? I mean really, no chance to explain? Sounds as dumb as being forced into a psychiatric ward for wearing a pink shirt.
Holy shit this is horrible. It really shows the true cost of having a disciplined public society. People love to hate on SF, and the homelessness. But I think it’s a society that prioritizes individual freedom which allows for both this outcome and the entrepreneurial environment we see.
Japan absolutely does not stop being Japan just because they change their prison policy. Just like Sweden doesn't stop having a very well run society just because they don't have the same prison policies as the Japanese.
You can have western values while also having Japanese peacefulness.
None of this post seemed like necessary costs. You can arrest criminals while allowing more than one shower per 5 days, along with all the other absurd rules and restrictions here.
Hard disagree. Prison is the one you're not supposed to enjoy, jail is the place you use to keep people BEFORE they are judged.
A jail should limit the people held only as much as needed for the safety of the public and the handlers, but no punishment should be inflicted because no one's a convicted criminal (yet).
And in any case, prison should have a strong component of making the guilty person fit to live among others. A person that's been made to sit still staring at the wall for all their waking life for years is a person I definitely don't want as a neighbour, because there's no way they come out of that sane.
Sorry, I think you mean abiding*. But laws are not some moral edicts handed down by god. They can and often are wrong or seriously misguided. Laws can and should be broken if and only if the agent at hand has a thorough understanding of why they are violating the law. Breaking a law and antisocial behavior are not necessarily equivalent.
Society can be optimized for the law-abiding without being needlessly cruel.
Jail's job is to keep you around during your legal process. You're not supposed to enjoy jail but it's not supposed to be torture, either. Torture does not belong in a civilized society and especially should not be used against those who have not even been formally charged. much less convicted, of a crime.
Right, but there's a core conceit we use in the US (mostly) that you are innocent until you are proven guilty, and if you are wrongfully accused (as was evidently the case from the author), you should perhaps NOT be put into such a grim set of living conditions with essentially no rights.
In this case, the author evidently _was_ a law abiding person, so the optimization failed, senselessly, likely out of a systemic effort to strike enough fear in the populace to over-index towards avoiding the possibility of this sort of situation. (Much like Singapore caning people for minor offenses.)
Whether or not you agree that such draconian punishments or processes are effective or fair is a different discussion, but this person was LITERALLY not supposed to be in jail, so how fair is it that they were removed from polite society for over a month in such poor conditions and at considerable expense?
For those somehow actually considering this: make sure to check local laws, might be super illegal or at least inadmissible, (im)morality nonwithstanding. Although just because it's illegal, inadmissible, or immoral, doesn't mean you shouldn't do it of course.
Also maybe don't use the Meta glasses for this, even if you do decide to go for it. Not so sous anymore if you do.
You should flag this thread if you have an issue with my comment. It is a nationalistic flamebait article to begin with. It is fairly preposterous to allow nationalistic flamebait claims but not allow refutation of them.
I understand that, but I would like to note from a human perspective that when seeing an article full of misleading and exaggerated claims bashing your country as a whole and comparing it disfavorably to the author's own, it's hard to react in a perfectly emotionless manner. All the more so when the thread is full of comments piling on even more, taking it all as fact and condemning it as a 'fascist dictatorship'. This is not exactly material fit for intellectual-curiosity-stimulating discussion to begin with, and it would really be nice if this kind of awful content wasn't on HN in the first place.
> Language barrier: Forced to communicate only in Japanese
To be clear, what the author said is that communicating in any language besides Japanese is prohibited with anyone. So if you share a cell with an inmate who speaks your native language, you're not allowed to speak with them in that language. I think that expected to be allowed to speak with inmates is not a sign of arrogance, and I don't know any other country that has a similar restriction.
Another issue is whether the author is allowed to communicate about her case in her native language. If she's asked to sign forms, make statements, or expected to understand her legal procedure, one would expect that the police would provide a translator to ensure that she's treated fairly. Certainly, that would be the norm in the West.
> The arrogance of American tourists is truly boundless. How dare Japanese people not speak English! Who do they think they are?
That's not the issue. At least in the US it is unconstitutional to bar inmates from speaking or communicating in non-English languages.
Likewise the US legal system is required to provide you an interpreter who can speak in a language you are proficient in.
Whether these rights are properly upheld in the US is another question but they are rights you are entitled to.
That's the main issue. These are rights that Americans are accustomed to and it's not always obvious to them when they leave the country that these rights aren't universal among developed countries.
> The arrogance of American tourists is truly boundless. How dare Japanese people not speak English! Who do they think they are?
This attitude is so unbelievably prevalent among native English speakers. "Obviously everyone should speak *my* language -- why should I ever have to learn another one?"
One would think "not being able to speak anything but Japanese" would be a problem for anyone not speaking Japanese, not just English speakers specifically, so this framing is more than a bit ironic, don't you think?
Seriously, what is so baffling about expecting an interpreter to be provided? Even if you do "speak" the language, this is not some everyday environment, and evidently not a good-faith one either. If I got into a similar situation in the US or similar, you can be sure as shit I'd ask for one too, even though I do believe I have a reasonable command over the English language in general.
An interpreter is in fact provided for important communications, but it's a given that there's not going to be interpreters on-hand for every foreign prisoner 24/7. I think most people would simply accept that a language barrier is a normal fact of life of being arrested in a foreign country. The expectation of not needing to speak a foreign language in a foreign country seems to be a uniquely English one, and it manifests in other ways. There are many people who come to Japan to teach English without understanding a word of Japanese, and then complain about the difficulty of life, how restaraunt staff won't speak English or provide an English menu for them, how this and that are not provided for in English. They don't attempt to learn Japanese even after teaching for 5+ years, and yet criticise Japan for not catering to their needs. The sense of entitlement gets nauseating after you've witnessed it enough.
You are legally entitled to an interpreter when being questioned by police or while in court. I believe the claims in the article are exaggerated, I would speculate intentionally so as the author is an engagement-farming content creator who has made several videos about the subject garnering hundreds of thousands of views. Of course, it is possible their experience was worse than what they are legally entitled to -- the real world often doesn't live up to ideals and legal rights can be violated -- but they speak in broad generalizations about the system as a whole that are not representative.
Seems like it's not pleasant, and the author says in theory it could be as low of a bar as getting into a heated argument; but the author never discloses his actual charge, which I think is critical context.
If he stabbed someone and got this treatment, it would be very different than if he had a loud but normal argument you might see in any big box store in the US.
That he doesn't go on to protest why he got locked up makes me think it was something more serious.
Some time ago (can't easily find it anymore) there was a expose on UK prisons, which was interesting without even knowing what crime the prisoner was convicted of, but turns out it was abuse of a relative.
The author mentions it in a YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2epTf2IW1g (at the 2:20 mark).
But essentially, somebody else sent her a package with something illegal in it that she didn't ask for. The police took her passport for a few months and searched her house. After a few months, she got her passport returned to her, she left Japan temporarily, but when she came back, they arrested her "to ensure [she] wouldn't flee while they finished the investigation".
She also mentioned it was "the most normal type of thing you can think of"; it might have been something like pseudoephedrine/Sudafed. That's a common over-the-counter drug in other countries but it's very illegal here in Japan (unless it's under 10%, or you buy it from Japan)!
Edit: Importing pseudoephedrine above 10% concentrations is illegal, but you can legally buy some higher concentrations over-the-counter while in Japan.
> somebody else sent her a package with something illegal in it that she didn't ask for.
> She also mentioned it was "the most normal type of thing you can think of";
This doesn't really answer the question, though. It's frustrating to try to interpret these stories with a lot of writing and video describing everything except the crucial detail about what the charges were for.
I don't think she's trying to withhold information to avoid contaminating the case because she's spilling other details all over the place that could be used to influence the case. Yet the key piece of information that is supposedly "the most normal" isn't revealed
> It's frustrating to try to interpret these stories with a lot of writing and video describing everything except the crucial detail about what the charges were for.
Is it really a crucial detail though? As someone having lived in Japan for a long time, I see no reason why we can not discuss the fact that civil rights and detention treatment in Japan are lacking without resorting to "Do they deserve it in light of what they were suspected for?". I personally see no reason why suspects can not deserve decent sleep, meal, bedding, etc. even if they may be Shoko Asahara himself.
For the record, I have not watched any video or read anything else about this individual. Nor do I intend to.
> Is it really a crucial detail though?
Literally the central trigger point of the story.
> For the record, I have not watched any video or read anything else about this individual. Nor do I intend to.
Then I can see why you're not interested in the details
Fair I suppose. I guess one can treat this either as a personal story (although frustratingly scattered across multiple places and incomplete) or as a description of a single instance of an arrest in Japan.
It is? Because the whole ‘is it awful’ thing hinges pretty strongly on how many options you were given to avoid it before going there.
If I had the police over, was an ass, had them come back, was an ass again. Then at some point they’re going to just think I’m the person that’d run away while they conduct their investigation.
I’m sure bad policemen exist in Japan, but all the ones I’ve met have been very friendly and reasonable.
Skimming the video there's also important unstated context that the person was non-white foreigner, had tattoos, and on visa. It's possible that the combination made an ambiguous grey-area situation much worse.
Likely some sort of stimulant as you point out. It is hardly the first time either as there have been public cases like this numerous times over the last two decades. Some cases even ending with deportation. The one I remember most vividly was someone carrying an unlabeled bottle of ADHD medication that had been sent to them while they were in South Korea by their pharmacist mum in the US; that they then ran afoul of when entering Japan. Similarly, there was a case at the University of Tokyo in the 00s, where an overseas student got sent an (allegedly) unprompted package with cannabis (not a stimulant though) from friends abroad. Allegedly, they were expelled and we got university-wide, anti-drug campaigns with memorable slogans like: "Illicit drugs are illegal".
Due to their history, laws regarding stimulants are harsher in Japan than in many other places in the world [1] and this frequently takes people by surprise. Not that Japanese laws related to illegal drugs are lenient to begin with.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade_in_Japan
I am always amazed at details like this. Who would voluntarily go back to this kind of situation?
What do you do when you have a bad flu or cold if you don't have pseudoephedrine?
You can still easily buy it here, but the over-the-counter pills are always mixed with other ingredients to make it more difficult to convert them into amphetamines.
E.g. Contac 600 Plus can be found in basically all drug stores and it has 120mg of Pseudoephedrine, 100mg Caffeine, 8mg Chlorpheniramine, and 0.4mg of Belladonna Extract. It sounds like it'll actually be illegal to import into Japan, since 120/(120 + 100 + 8 + 0.4) is over 10%, but I've previously just walked into a drug store and bought a packet.
They _do_ specifically protest, and it's crazy that they're able to detain you like this from an accusation while they build a case, even if you're innocent. In the US, barring flight risks and past history or cases of real malice or violence or an ongoing threat, you can at least typically make bail, AND the conditions in a jail are generally far better and less strict than this:
>Both cases were ultimately dropped and the second arrest was essentially tied to the first and shouldn’t have even been possible. But because of how the system works weather it’s a viable reason or not, they can still trap you in there for a time while the case is being reviewed. I met others who where there for shorter and much longer periods of time. The worst part was knowing i was innocent. After it’s all said and done you walk out and they act as if nothing happened. Not only was this was all extremely traumatizing but it cost me a HUGE of money that I really did not have and caused irreversible damage to my life.
> In the US, barring flight risks and past history or cases of real malice or violence or an ongoing threat, you can at least typically make bail
The literal majority of people in US jails are there not because they have been convicted of anything but because they were given a bail amount they couldn’t afford to pay, which is a deliberate strategy by the courts when there is no justification to refuse bail. This can look like a $500 cash bail set on a homeless guy charged with resisting arrest (aka being arrested). Many of them are innocent and are trapped and have their lives ruined in exactly the way this guy describes. (We assume that many of them are innocent because when someone pays their bail, more than 50% of cases are simply dismissed as soon as they leave jail. The expectation is that they will just plead guilty because otherwise they are stuck in jail for months waiting for a trial).
https://bailproject.org/data/unlocking-the-truth/
> We assume that many of them are innocent because when someone pays their bail, more than 50% of cases are simply dismissed as soon as they leave jail.
This sounds like a very dubious assumption.
Perhaps it is, but it explains the data. What is your alternative explanation?
The legal system doesn't have the resources to move forward with the case and decides it isn't a priority. I've seen this happen many times with people I know committing violent felonies.
Even for smaller examples it happens all the time. Half the time you can completely get out of traffic tickets by showing up to court to plead not guilty. They dismiss the case because it's not worth the time.
> They dismiss the case because it's not worth the time.
I don't know what this means in the context of the US justice system. They're not paid on commission. They're being paid to be there no matter what happens.
They dismiss the case because the cop didn't bother to show up, or they didn't have any evidence against your defense. The reason you (as the person who got ticketed) don't show up to court is because you know you have nothing to say, or because it's not worth it to you when getting out of the ticket isn't enough pay for 3-4 hours of your time. The only reason you do show up is because you think you have a defense.
If you can't make bail, you're showing up no matter how stupid the charge is.
edit: I have personal experience (from a few decades ago) of being forced to face stupid charges. It was a game. They inflated the potential sentence to 3-5 years through silly charges designed for just that, and offered me a plea bargain of no time, no fine, and expungement from my record in 6 months. I pled guilty. If I hadn't been bailed out, I would have had to wait two weeks in jail for that moronic, depressing event. I pled guilty because it was easy to do, even if I hadn't done anything. If I had sat in jail for two weeks, I might have pled guilty even if it involved a week of jail time and a fine, just to get out.
Kalief Browder spent almost 3 years in Riker's Island awaiting trial just to have the charges dropped. People on here told me that showed that the justice system worked. I said that his life was destroyed by this, and he would probably end up dead soon. I got downvoted furiously. He'd killed himself 2 years later.
It surprises me how many people are responding to an article that includes:
> You can not bring or keep anything including a bra or even your own underwear.
presuming the author is male.
I strongly suspect that the author's legal counsel advised them not to discuss their actual charge in explicit detail
> loud but normal argument you might see in any big box store in the US.
I always assumed this kind of behaviour was cherry picked on social media. How “normal” is it actually?!
In most of the US -- completely unheard of.
In particularly bad neighborhoods in the US -- it happens sometimes.
Depending on what kind of life you live in the US, it could be completely foreign to you, or it could be normal.
It's quite rare.
Except at Waffle House.
> If he stabbed someone and got this treatment, it would be very different
I dont think so. I think innocent until proven guilty is the right way to go. Because all the police know is that he is accused of stabbing someone. Whether he actually did it or not, a court of law will decide that while he is present to be tried. Until then You cant punish someone like this over an accusation. You can deny bail if the person might be dangerous, but you cant punish them
This is bullshit and the japanese should be ashamed of having such a system while being considered a part of the civilized world. If this was china people would be rightfully losing their mind
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean someone gets to go free until their court date. It depends on the crime, the flight risk, and the supporting evidence that police are able to collect.
There are many examples of police letting suspects go due to lack of evidence and then later discovering they let the wrong person go. These stories generate a lot of outrage in cases where there's public interest or a news story, but this is the reality of crime: You don't always have enough evidence to justify detaining someone, but the police's job is to quickly try to find enough evidence to find the right perpetrator
The thing is, this is pretty standard treatment over in Japan. As the blog poster says, the charge against them was ultimately dropped, but not before they were held for over 30 days. The 23 day timer on charges is, as they said, something that is often exploited by the police; they can add charges later to reset the clock. While this is going on, you're often pressured to sign a confession. You may get offered a comparatively short or lenient punishment for confessing, as compared to potentially months of detention while the police perform their investigation and decide what to charge you with. It's a big part of why the conviction rate over there is so high; not confessing to a crime, even when innocent, can carry a punishment worse than conviction. Of course, then you have to consider that you now have a criminal record, so someone who lives in Japan may feel pressured to confess to avoid prolonged detention, but that can have other effects on them in the future.
Same in the USA. This is what “prosecutor deals” are for: plead guilty and we’ll let you off with a year in jail, make us hold a trial and the judge will give you ten years.
Right, but I intentionally avoided making that comparison because of the way the US justice system works. There are more escape hatches for someone who has been charged to be released while awaiting trial: bail, release on recognizance, habeas petitions, etc. These don't really exist in the same way in Japan.
Arrested not convicted.
In the US, it's seen as a God-given truth that no innocent person should ever be punished. Partly because it was founded (in part) by oppressed minorities fleeing states where the were constantly harassed by authorities. (Irony - the US's approach hardly fixed the issue).
But is it OK to risk punishing a few innocent people if it greatly reduces the amount of suffering caused by crime?
> Partly because it was founded (in part) by oppressed minorities fleeing states where the were constantly harassed by authorities
Nah, it's a principle that was brought in from English common law. E.g Blackstone's Ratio[0] was published at roughly the same time as the American revolution was playing out, and cited plenty of earlier formulations of the same principle. Habeas Corpus was codified in the Magna Carta, but predated it as a concept.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio
This was on the tail of sectarian conflicts (e.g. Cromwell) in the UK, and people fleeing them to the US.
You're right than I'm oversimplifying it, and being very US centric.
It is not seen that way in the US except during high school civics classes. There have been multiple people executed by the state who were publicly known to be innocent at the time. https://www.texastribune.org/2026/04/30/texas-james-broadnax...
> In the US, it's seen as a God-given truth that no innocent person should ever be punished.
In the US, just as in Japan, as soon as you are arrested they begin punishing you. If there were a real assumption of innocence, jail would be pleasant and comfortable, and if you were WFH you wouldn't miss a day. There is a material presumption of guilt, even if there's some sort of ethereal theoretical presumption of innocence.
Instead, you're in a horrible cell, eating horrible food, dressed in a humiliating way, treated in a humiliating way, and exposed to dangerous people. Unless you can pay a bond which you will never get back (because you are too poor to pay bail.) You haven't been convicted of anything. The fine you're facing might be lower than your bond, and the time you're facing might be shorter than the time you'd have to wait in jail to go to court.
Back in the 19th century. De Tocqueville talks about American justice favouring the rich since they could post bail and the poor could not. I have seen documentaries about US bail hostels and some of them seem like horrific places as bad as prisons in some other countries and this is before you've been found guilty of anything.
> I have seen documentaries about US bail hostels
I’m not familiar with this term. Is that an old thing?
It's a British term for halfway houses specifically for people out on bail.
I don’t believe in the premise.
Japan has a conviction rate of 99.8%. arrested and convicted is pretty much the same thing over there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system_of_Jap...
It's actually not. You can be arrested and then released without charges, which is not a conviction but does not factor into the conviction rate statistic.
I was going to say the same thing. OP in this case would not count toward either percentage, what you have to wonder is how many people get charges dropped who get put through the ringer.
It also makes the act of accusing incredibly powerful, and you have to wonder what threshold there is and whose accusations matter, because this severe punishment for dropped charges feels extremely powerful.
Arrested is not the same as convicted. I lived in Japan for a few years, and I have heard of similar situations to what the article describes.
In Japan you can be arrested while an investigation is in process, only afterwards you will be indicted. Additionally, Japan does not permit defendants to post bail prior to an indictment.
Yes Japan has a really high conviction rate, but that is because they indict only cases were a conviction is likely.
Arrests don't need to lead to the person being indicted.
Not surprising if you can detain people for long periods under harsh conditions without charging them.
If they confess, it counts as a win. If they don’t, you release them but it’s not a loss (as they were not charged).
The author doesn't seem to have been charged with anything, so her release doesn't affect the 'conviction rate' - but she was arrested.
By comparison, you might consider https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/14/fewer-tha... :
> In fiscal year 2022, only 290 of 71,954 defendants in federal criminal cases – about 0.4% – went to trial and were acquitted
> Japan has a conviction rate of 99.8%
So does the US.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/06/11/only-2-of...
Of charges, not arrests.
And your point is?
Not sure why you were downvoted. From the last paragraph:
"I spent a total of 35 days here. The first arrest was 3 days of processing, the initial 10 days followed by the 10 days extension for a total of 23 days before my case was dropped. But the same time my case was dropped my accusers found a another reason to issue a second arrest keeping me there for an additional 12 days!
Both cases were ultimately dropped and the second arrest was essentially tied to the first and shouldn’t have even been possible."
The author acknowledges that it still ruins people's lives and is completely unfair.
For those interested, here is the YouTube channel of the author. She has several videos about her experience. I used to watch her channel, and after reading this article (although she never mentions her name), I clicked through a few more of her posts, and saw her photo and immediately recognized the name. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=175yRhSaNfU
This sounds bad enough that it makes me wonder what the punishment for breaking the rules in jail is. If you can't sleep in a certain direction, what are they going to do if you refuse to obey? Or even can't obey because you don't speak Japanese?
Breaking rules in US prisons leads to solitary confinement. I'm assuming there's something similar in Japanese prisons, although the conditions sound like they can't get much worse...
I can't logically think of any other lawfully worse punishment than what was described in the article. I don't know what they'd do for breaking rules in these situations, to be honest.
Absolutely horrifying. I've come to believe that criminal punishment is simply unethical. I wish someone would come up with a better option.
And what do you have to say to teenage girls or even little kid girls getting raped?
Being laxist towards criminals is not just being cruel to the victims to me: to me it is downright complicity with the criminals.
BTW: Japan happens to be one of the safest country on earth. A friend who's a pilot told me: "Tokyo is the only city in the world where I've women from my team (mostly air hostesses but also female pilot or co-pilot) go for a run at 3am". Now he didn't fly to every city in the world but I can name a great many cities where a fit woman won't go joking in yoga pants at 3am. And so can he.
Safety is easy to achieve if you don't care about justice.
Japan's judicial system has something like a 99% conviction rate. It's "safe" because they swipe up every single criminal they can, plus a bunch of random people in the process. So everyone is naturally going to be on their best behavior.
The United States federal conviction rate is essentially identical to the Japanese judicial conviction rate when measured by the same methodology. It's roughly 99.6-99.8% depending on the year.
In China, the conviction rate is 99.975%.
Whole new level of respect for the Yakuza, no wonder they end up running everything there.
Pro Tip: When visiting Japan, dress and comport yourself so you don't look like you should be thrown in jail, and it will happen a lot less often.
As a Mexican friend puts it for Mexico: Dress as the police should believe you.
That's the advice I give to anyone traveling internationally. You get treated a lot differently when you wear khaki slacks and an Oxford shirt (more professional rather than stylish) - even if you're wearing sneakers.
The more bland the colors, the more you blend in and easier it is to flow through places.
I wonder if that's possible in Japan for a black person
I'd assume so, though I'm not aware of any statistics that'd catalogue police action there by skin color / ethnicity, not official, not third party.
I'd think a formal or business casual attire, with proper grooming, is a rather international signal that you're vaguely alright in your ways.
Anything specific you reckon otherwise for?
Good thing Africa is huge; there is no need to feel like a stranger.
Good thing that landfills have space too, for human garbage like someone here.
Or dont go to an authoritarian state where something like this is accepted. Im astounded at people defending this. If it was china people would see this is messed up
There is nothing about Japan that suggests otherwise. One example being whether you agree with capital punishment or not, their method of never giving you advance notice is torture, for both the prisoner and their family.
another thing in Japan is that you can get arrested for self defence. Say if someone starts attacking you on the street, and eg. you punch back causing an injury, when you could have simply ran away and escaped, then you can get arrested and held for 23 days as a suspect.
So say if someone shoves you on a subway in Tokyo, do not ever shove back or do anything worse. Move away, get witnesses / evidence if you can, then report.
Oh, and other things that can get you arrested:
- Not promptly returning someone's lost property such as a wallet
- A review about a business that damaged their reputation, even if it was true (but you don't have 100% evidence). eg. "I got food poisoning from here"
That’s a thing as well in some US states called duty to retreat.
Similar, but not the same. Japan is more strict. There is also no Castle Doctrine, so you have to retreat even if you are in your home.
Something as small as getting into a heated argument in public, accidentally taking an item you didn’t pay for, overstaying a visa, or even grabbing someone else’s umbrella or bike thinking it was yours can escalate further than you could imagine and have you arrested before you’ve even had a chance to explain.
Is this actually true or just fearmongering? I mean really, no chance to explain? Sounds as dumb as being forced into a psychiatric ward for wearing a pink shirt.
I mostly love Japan, but this is it, I can't risk something like this.
The conviction rate was already terrifying, but this probably nails the coffin.
And this in a country where the yakuza is a sanctioned part of the society?
Holy shit this is horrible. It really shows the true cost of having a disciplined public society. People love to hate on SF, and the homelessness. But I think it’s a society that prioritizes individual freedom which allows for both this outcome and the entrepreneurial environment we see.
Japan absolutely does not stop being Japan just because they change their prison policy. Just like Sweden doesn't stop having a very well run society just because they don't have the same prison policies as the Japanese.
You can have western values while also having Japanese peacefulness.
None of this post seemed like necessary costs. You can arrest criminals while allowing more than one shower per 5 days, along with all the other absurd rules and restrictions here.
You think our prison system is much better? I mean hell, we're currently shipping people off to prison camps in other countries without due process.
You are not supposed to be in jail, and you are not supposed to enjoy it if you are. It makes sense to optimize society for law obiding people.
>and you are not supposed to enjoy it if you are.
Hard disagree. Prison is the one you're not supposed to enjoy, jail is the place you use to keep people BEFORE they are judged.
A jail should limit the people held only as much as needed for the safety of the public and the handlers, but no punishment should be inflicted because no one's a convicted criminal (yet).
And in any case, prison should have a strong component of making the guilty person fit to live among others. A person that's been made to sit still staring at the wall for all their waking life for years is a person I definitely don't want as a neighbour, because there's no way they come out of that sane.
Sorry, I think you mean abiding*. But laws are not some moral edicts handed down by god. They can and often are wrong or seriously misguided. Laws can and should be broken if and only if the agent at hand has a thorough understanding of why they are violating the law. Breaking a law and antisocial behavior are not necessarily equivalent.
Society can be optimized for the law-abiding without being needlessly cruel.
Jail's job is to keep you around during your legal process. You're not supposed to enjoy jail but it's not supposed to be torture, either. Torture does not belong in a civilized society and especially should not be used against those who have not even been formally charged. much less convicted, of a crime.
> You are not supposed to be in jail
Especially If you’re wrongfully arrested. “Optimizing society for law abiding people” means the opposite of what you think it means.
Right, but there's a core conceit we use in the US (mostly) that you are innocent until you are proven guilty, and if you are wrongfully accused (as was evidently the case from the author), you should perhaps NOT be put into such a grim set of living conditions with essentially no rights.
In this case, the author evidently _was_ a law abiding person, so the optimization failed, senselessly, likely out of a systemic effort to strike enough fear in the populace to over-index towards avoiding the possibility of this sort of situation. (Much like Singapore caning people for minor offenses.)
Whether or not you agree that such draconian punishments or processes are effective or fair is a different discussion, but this person was LITERALLY not supposed to be in jail, so how fair is it that they were removed from polite society for over a month in such poor conditions and at considerable expense?
The picture in section "THE CELL" does not match the description.
Wear a body camera while in public, one that is always recording. It won't save you from prescription drug charges though.
Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
For those somehow actually considering this: make sure to check local laws, might be super illegal or at least inadmissible, (im)morality nonwithstanding. Although just because it's illegal, inadmissible, or immoral, doesn't mean you shouldn't do it of course.
Also maybe don't use the Meta glasses for this, even if you do decide to go for it. Not so sous anymore if you do.
Tl;dr: you are in effectively the hole (but stricter) for anything between 1 day and months, without charges. It is torture. As in actual torture.
Fact check... anyone can confirm this treatment is standard in Japan?
[flagged]
Please don't take HN threads into nationalistic flamewar hell. It doesn't help.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
You should flag this thread if you have an issue with my comment. It is a nationalistic flamebait article to begin with. It is fairly preposterous to allow nationalistic flamebait claims but not allow refutation of them.
You* are responsible for following the rules regardless of what others are doing.
A bad article (if that's what it is—I haven't looked yet) doesn't make it ok to break them, and a bad thread doesn't either.
(* I don't mean you personally of course, but all of us)
I understand that, but I would like to note from a human perspective that when seeing an article full of misleading and exaggerated claims bashing your country as a whole and comparing it disfavorably to the author's own, it's hard to react in a perfectly emotionless manner. All the more so when the thread is full of comments piling on even more, taking it all as fact and condemning it as a 'fascist dictatorship'. This is not exactly material fit for intellectual-curiosity-stimulating discussion to begin with, and it would really be nice if this kind of awful content wasn't on HN in the first place.
> Language barrier: Forced to communicate only in Japanese
To be clear, what the author said is that communicating in any language besides Japanese is prohibited with anyone. So if you share a cell with an inmate who speaks your native language, you're not allowed to speak with them in that language. I think that expected to be allowed to speak with inmates is not a sign of arrogance, and I don't know any other country that has a similar restriction.
Another issue is whether the author is allowed to communicate about her case in her native language. If she's asked to sign forms, make statements, or expected to understand her legal procedure, one would expect that the police would provide a translator to ensure that she's treated fairly. Certainly, that would be the norm in the West.
> The arrogance of American tourists is truly boundless. How dare Japanese people not speak English! Who do they think they are?
That's not the issue. At least in the US it is unconstitutional to bar inmates from speaking or communicating in non-English languages.
Likewise the US legal system is required to provide you an interpreter who can speak in a language you are proficient in.
Whether these rights are properly upheld in the US is another question but they are rights you are entitled to.
That's the main issue. These are rights that Americans are accustomed to and it's not always obvious to them when they leave the country that these rights aren't universal among developed countries.
> The arrogance of American tourists is truly boundless. How dare Japanese people not speak English! Who do they think they are?
This attitude is so unbelievably prevalent among native English speakers. "Obviously everyone should speak *my* language -- why should I ever have to learn another one?"
One would think "not being able to speak anything but Japanese" would be a problem for anyone not speaking Japanese, not just English speakers specifically, so this framing is more than a bit ironic, don't you think?
Seriously, what is so baffling about expecting an interpreter to be provided? Even if you do "speak" the language, this is not some everyday environment, and evidently not a good-faith one either. If I got into a similar situation in the US or similar, you can be sure as shit I'd ask for one too, even though I do believe I have a reasonable command over the English language in general.
An interpreter is in fact provided for important communications, but it's a given that there's not going to be interpreters on-hand for every foreign prisoner 24/7. I think most people would simply accept that a language barrier is a normal fact of life of being arrested in a foreign country. The expectation of not needing to speak a foreign language in a foreign country seems to be a uniquely English one, and it manifests in other ways. There are many people who come to Japan to teach English without understanding a word of Japanese, and then complain about the difficulty of life, how restaraunt staff won't speak English or provide an English menu for them, how this and that are not provided for in English. They don't attempt to learn Japanese even after teaching for 5+ years, and yet criticise Japan for not catering to their needs. The sense of entitlement gets nauseating after you've witnessed it enough.
So the claim was misleading, and they do in fact provide the interpreters that are entitled to wish for?
I guess I see what you mean, but I feel there would have been a way to express this all better.
You are legally entitled to an interpreter when being questioned by police or while in court. I believe the claims in the article are exaggerated, I would speculate intentionally so as the author is an engagement-farming content creator who has made several videos about the subject garnering hundreds of thousands of views. Of course, it is possible their experience was worse than what they are legally entitled to -- the real world often doesn't live up to ideals and legal rights can be violated -- but they speak in broad generalizations about the system as a whole that are not representative.
[flagged]
Please don't respond by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html