An interesting anecdote
Michael Cash
currently reading "Pakuraretara Dou Naru?"
It seems there was a fellow accused of a crime. He retained a lawyer,
who was formerly a prosecutor. After about a month on the case, the
lawyer quit.
The next time homeboy sees his former lawyer is in court, during his
trial.....as a witness for the prosecution. Former lawyer testifies
that the defendant admitted the crime to him, and that he felt sure
the defendant was guilty.
The judge(s) in this trial returned a verdict of "not guilty", since
the prosecution had little evidence other than the "he-said-she-said"
type. They ignored the testimony from the lawyer, since the
information was obtained under attorney-client privilege, which is
protected under Japanese law.
The prosecutors then appealed the not guilty verdict to a higher
court, which returned a verdict of guilty, based on.....the lawyer's
testimony, which the judges found credible and decided to admit
despite its illegal nature.
Zorak, you catching all this?
--
Michael Cash
"I rebuke thee! I rebuke thee! I rebuke thee!
Mr. Cash? Sorry... I mistook you for Satan.
An honest mistake, and one to which I am sure
you must be well accustomed."
Prof. Ernest T. Bass
Mount Pilot College
Eric Takabayashi
> Just wanted to share a little anecdote I encountered in the book I am
> currently reading "Pakuraretara Dou Naru?"
>
> It seems there was a fellow accused of a crime. He retained a lawyer,
> who was formerly a prosecutor. After about a month on the case, the
> lawyer quit.
>
> The next time homeboy sees his former lawyer is in court, during his
> trial.....as a witness for the prosecution. Former lawyer testifies
> that the defendant admitted the crime to him, and that he felt sure
> the defendant was guilty.
More important Mike, is, did the man actually commit the crime he was accused of?
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Charles Eicher
et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp says...
How could that possibly be of any importance to the court?
Eric Takabayashi
>How could that possibly be of any importance to the court?
The SINGLE most important factor in whether or not someone IS guilty of a crime
(not "found" guilty), is whether or not they did it. People who did NOT do it,
should not be "found" guilty, nor should people who DID it, be "found" not
guilty. Did they do it? GUILTY. Did this defendant, like many criminals (most
lawyers know), actually tell his defense lawyer that he did it? Did he do it?
Then we already know he is guilty. Thank you.
But softhearted people here will tell you that the state must PROVE that the
person did it, even if we already know, such as many women who are raped by an
acquaintence, and the victims must submit themselves to the harsh environment of
the court or even the scrutiny of the media, to "prove" the truth, and few
rapists actually see jail. It is no wonder most victims do not report crime.
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Scott Reynolds
>
> Charles Eicher says...
>
> >How could that possibly be of any importance to the court?
>
> The SINGLE most important factor in whether or not someone IS guilty of a crime
> (not "found" guilty), is whether or not they did it. People who did NOT do it,
> should not be "found" guilty, nor should people who DID it, be "found" not
> guilty. Did they do it? GUILTY. Did this defendant, like many criminals (most
> lawyers know), actually tell his defense lawyer that he did it? Did he do it?
> Then we already know he is guilty. Thank you.
I think the question, Eric, is what to do when "we" (i.e., the court) do
not know whether or not the accused is guilty.
_______________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
Brett Robson
"Justice must not only be done, but seen to be done"
--
Brett Robson
Aichi Prefecture, Japan
real address: brettr at newsguy dot com
"Run and tell all the Angels
I'll make my way back home when I learn to fly."
Eric Takabayashi
>I think the question, Eric, is what to do when "we" (i.e., the court) do
>not know whether or not the accused is guilty.
Don't know? CAN'T know? (Such as in the Setagaya case with entire family dead,
or two women stabbed dead in their own residences in Fukuyama, or three lone
women stabbed dead on the island of Kauai, and no one who saw anything useful -
this is why we need increased monitoring.) Then investigate and prove it.
(Let the majority of jurors decide, not require all of them, to declare guilt.
There can always be one joker who decides not to declare someone guilty, just to
be contrary, because they fall in love with the defendant, or because they
sympathize with the color of their skin; letting criminals, even killers, get
away scot free.)
But if, for example, a guy with two knives climbs into the window of a school
and stabs 26 people, with perhaps hundreds of witnesses, AND he tells the police
and his lawyer he did it? Why waste victim or survivors' time and my tax money
on a trial? What difference does it make if the judge, prosecutor, police or we
did not see it for ourselves?
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Brett Robson
Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>
> Charles Eicher says...
>
> >How could that possibly be of any importance to the court?
>
> The SINGLE most important factor in whether or not someone IS guilty of a crime
> (not "found" guilty), is whether or not they did it. People who did NOT do it,
> should not be "found" guilty, nor should people who DID it, be "found" not
> guilty. Did they do it? GUILTY. Did this defendant, like many criminals (most
> lawyers know), actually tell his defense lawyer that he did it? Did he do it?
> Then we already know he is guilty. Thank you.
I'm no lawyer but that is "hear-say evidence" and is inadmissible for
criminal cases in every civilised country.
ps. I shot JFK, JR, and Larry Flint.
> But softhearted people here will tell you that the state must PROVE that the
> person did it, even if we already know, such as many women who are raped by an
> acquaintence, and the victims must submit themselves to the harsh environment of
> the court or even the scrutiny of the media, to "prove" the truth, and few
> rapists actually see jail. It is no wonder most victims do not report crime.
How do we know someone did it? Because we read about it in the press?
--
Brett Robson
Aichi Prefecture, Japan
real address: brettr at newsguy dot com
"All that I am and all I'll ever be is a breathing body
And all that I know and all I'll ever see, is the real things around me
All I know, and it's true, there ain't no god there's just me and you"
Regurgitator
Eric Takabayashi
>I'm no lawyer but that is "hear-say evidence" and is inadmissible for
>criminal cases in every civilised country.
So tell me why, if innocent, you would tell your lawyer that you were in fact,
guilty, and why that lawyer should pretend you are innocent.
>How do we know someone did it? Because we read about it in the press?
Because, for example, it happened to you, as in, you know the man who raped you,
or there were witnesses.
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Eric Takabayashi
>"Justice must not only be done, but seen to be done"
How quaint. Now finish this sentence for me:
"If my wife or daughter get raped by an acquaintence, with no physical injury,
so it is simply her word against his, I want the rapist to go free because ... "
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Brett Robson
Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>
> Brett Robson says...
>
> >"Justice must not only be done, but seen to be done"
>
> How quaint.
That is not quaint, it is not trite, it is the basis of law.
> Now finish this sentence for me:
>
> "If my wife or daughter get raped by an acquaintence, with no physical injury,
> so it is simply her word against his, I want the rapist to go free because ... "
... you can track him down and kill him yourself.
The reason we have indenpendent judiciaries is so the above question is
taken out of the equation. Unfortunately people get away with murder.
"She said, he said, they said, he said, I think" is not good enough.
--
Brett Robson
Aichi Prefecture, Japan
real address: brettr at newsguy dot com
"All that I am and all I'll ever be is a breathing body
Eric Takabayashi
>That is not quaint, it is not trite, it is the basis of law.
Everywhere? Not every country lets criminals get away, just cuz one person out
of many thinks they didn't do it, or was unconvinced they did do it, as in the
US or Japan.
>> Now finish this sentence for me:
>>
>> "If my wife or daughter get raped by an acquaintence, with no physical injury,
>> so it is simply her word against his, I want the rapist to go free because ... "
>
>... you can track him down and kill him yourself.
Thanks for taking that seriously.
I'd love to kill them, but then I'd get arrested for manslaughter or murder and
people would take pity on the dead rapists as upstanding members of the
community and company and family men, or the media would portray them so,
anyway. I can't even try to publicly defame such criminals, or I'd get hit with
a lawsuit or get labelled a gaijin troublemaker.
>The reason we have indenpendent judiciaries is so the above question is
>taken out of the equation.
We need legal systems which understand the impact of crime and its effect on
victims better, not look out for the rights of known criminals such as the Ikeda
Elementary killer. We know he has a criminal past. He has bragged about his
legal immunity as a card carrying mental patient, even prevented police from
arresting him for a previous offense, by using his status as a mental patient.
> Unfortunately people get away with murder.
Unacceptable. In Fukuyama, there are one or more killers who have stabbed women
dead in their own homes, still running free. On the Hawaiian island of Kauai,
there are one or more killers (probably a serial killer), preying on lone women.
In Setagaya, there is an unsolved murder of an entire family. After the killing,
the killer seems to have eaten three containers of ice cream out of the freezer
before leaving. What disrespect. In Hamamatsu, only five of about 30 bosozoku
who abducted and killed a 14 year old Brazilian boy, assaulting ten others in
public, were ever arrested or tried for the crime.
There seem to be no witnesses to these horrific crimes (thus the need for
increased monitoring), so they remain unsolved; or in the bosozoku case, justice
remains undone, because the police did not do their job well enough.
>"She said, he said, they said, he said, I think" is not good enough.
What he said or she said are irrelevant. Evidence the doctors or police can or
cannot find are irrelevant. What the judge or jury "find" are irrelevant. What
actually happened, ie, did he do it, is the determining factor in guilt.
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Ken Nicolson
<eat_m...@smap.com> wrote:
>Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>
>> Now finish this sentence for me:
>>
>> "If my wife or daughter get raped by an acquaintence, with no physical injury,
>> so it is simply her word against his, I want the rapist to go free because ... "
>
>... you can track him down and kill him yourself.
http://www.salon.com/health/feature/1999/12/22/false_memory/
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton/re2rooum.htm
Ken
Michael Cash
Takabayashi) , never one to rest when there are lies to be told,
said:
I have no idea. Do you?
Are you looking at this only in the context of this particular case
(as I suspect you might)? Or are you able to see beyond it to its
larger, more frightening implications?
Michael Cash
Takabayashi<et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> , never one to rest when there
are lies to be told, said:
>In Setagaya, there is an unsolved murder of an entire family. After the killing,
>the killer seems to have eaten three containers of ice cream out of the freezer
>before leaving. What disrespect.
Excuse my impertinence, but I think the family was beyond caring what
happened to their ice cream. And even if their souls were hovering
around the scene, I would guess that they were so preoccupied with the
other indignities inflicted upon them to much notice or care what
happened to their ice cream.
Jason Cormier
"Eric Takabayashi" <et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:%Rg07.5383$Kf3....@www.newsranger.com...
> >I'm no lawyer but that is "hear-say evidence" and is inadmissible for
> >criminal cases in every civilised country.
>
> So tell me why, if innocent, you would tell your lawyer that you were in
fact,
> guilty, and why that lawyer should pretend you are innocent.
So some joker might say "not guilty" just to screw things up but all lawyers
are above lying?
> >How do we know someone did it? Because we read about it in the press?
>
> Because, for example, it happened to you, as in, you know the man who
raped you,
> or there were witnesses.
Lovely Eric. Will we have two categories of crime: those we know happened
and those we can only conclude happened? Or will the vast majority of
convicted criminals who are not convicted due to an eyewitness go free?
Methinks you need to think things out a bit more.
BTW - If someone saying it happened is good enough then why is there a
criminial offense based on falsely reporting a crime?
Jereth
et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp says...
> Brett Robson says...
>
> >I'm no lawyer but that is "hear-say evidence" and is inadmissible for
> >criminal cases in every civilised country.
>
> So tell me why, if innocent, you would tell your lawyer that you were in fact,
> guilty, and why that lawyer should pretend you are innocent.
> Hawaii
>
Eric, do you realize that you have automatically taken the words of a
lawyer in this argument at face value? You are aware that many lawyers
are bascially nothing more than professional liars?
The point is it was the lawyers word against the defendents, why
automatically beleive the lawyer?
Jason Cormier
> > Unfortunately people get away with murder.
>
> Unacceptable.
But still miles better than your police state. Either the majority of us
here sympathise with criminals or the solutions you present are quite
obviously going to lead to such blatant abuse that the imperfect reality of
today's justice system is a better option.
You decide under which category we fall. Choose wisely since the last time
you painted the majority of us with a broad, reactive brush you got bit in
the ass something fierce.
Ken Nicolson
>What he said or she said are irrelevant. Evidence the doctors or police can or
>cannot find are irrelevant. What the judge or jury "find" are irrelevant. What
>actually happened, ie, did he do it, is the determining factor in guilt.
If there is no evidence, if the victim and suspect's words are
irrelevant, how is "what actually happened" determined?
>Eric Takabayashi
Ken
Ryan Ginstrom
"Michael Cash" <etb...@mtpilot.edu> wrote in message
news:84f3ktsageqcdv3vd...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 12:26:06 GMT, Eric
> Takabayashi<et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> , never one to rest when there
> are lies to be told, said:
>
>
> >In Setagaya, there is an unsolved murder of an entire family. After the
killing,
> >the killer seems to have eaten three containers of ice cream out of the
freezer
> >before leaving. What disrespect.
>
> Excuse my impertinence, but I think the family was beyond caring what
> happened to their ice cream. And even if their souls were hovering
> around the scene, I would guess that they were so preoccupied with the
> other indignities inflicted upon them to much notice or care what
> happened to their ice cream.
What cracks me up is the fact that they had this "journalist" on TV the
other night saying that with that kind of ice cream-eating style (nado),
there is good reason to suspect that the killer was a "gaikokujin."
They're coming for you, Jason! Better get back to Canada quick!
---
Regards,
Ryan Ginstrom
marc
no, that is not more important. More important are the legal principals that
have to be observed to ensure that all defendents, not just this one, get a
fair trial. This includes a system that enforces lawyer-client
confidentiality.
mi...@redspark.org
> Scott Reynolds says...
>>I think the question, Eric, is what to do when "we" (i.e., the court) do
>>not know whether or not the accused is guilty.
> Don't know? CAN'T know? (Such as in the Setagaya case with entire family dead,
> or two women stabbed dead in their own residences in Fukuyama, or three lone
> women stabbed dead on the island of Kauai, and no one who saw anything useful -
> this is why we need increased monitoring.) Then investigate and prove it.
> (Let the majority of jurors decide, not require all of them, to declare guilt.
> There can always be one joker who decides not to declare someone guilty, just to
> be contrary, because they fall in love with the defendant, or because they
Can be, but usually isn't. The evidence seems to be either there, or not.
In this case, I'd've found the defendent innocent, and disbarred the
lawyer.
Mike
mi...@redspark.org
> Brett Robson says...
>>I'm no lawyer but that is "hear-say evidence" and is inadmissible for
>>criminal cases in every civilised country.
> So tell me why, if innocent, you would tell your lawyer that you were in fact,
> guilty, and why that lawyer should pretend you are innocent.
Other than the lawyer's word, who stated he was guilty?
Mike
Ken Nicolson
<ry...@munge.gol.com> wrote:
>What cracks me up is the fact that they had this "journalist" on TV the
>other night saying that with that kind of ice cream-eating style (nado),
>there is good reason to suspect that the killer was a "gaikokujin."
Aha, how to get away with the perfect crime in Japan - eat the natto
in the fridge with chopsticks - they'll never suspect me, hehehehe!
Oh, and did anyone tell this "journalist" that he was full of shit?
And how do you eat ice-cream in a foreign style?
>Ryan Ginstrom
Ken
Dan Rempel
>
> Brett Robson says...
>
> >That is not quaint, it is not trite, it is the basis of law.
>
> Everywhere? Not every country lets criminals get away, just cuz one person out
> of many thinks they didn't do it, or was unconvinced they did do it, as in the
> US or Japan.
[snip]
> We need legal systems which understand the impact of crime and its effect on
> victims better, not look out for the rights of known criminals such as the Ikeda
> Elementary killer. We know he has a criminal past. He has bragged about his
> legal immunity as a card carrying mental patient, even prevented police from
> arresting him for a previous offense, by using his status as a mental patient.
I really should know better, but I'm going to stick my head up here
and suggest a book by Wendy Kaminer: "It's All the Rage." She
discusses some of the things being thrown around here, including
"victim impact," and makes a pretty good case against those kinds of
considerations as a step back to a revenge, rather than justice-based
system of law.
(Ducking and covering)
Eric Takabayashi
>If there is no evidence, if the victim and suspect's words are
>irrelevant, how is "what actually happened" determined?
The person is EITHER guilty (they did what they are accused of) or not. They are
not "found" guilty or not guilty. This "determining" is precisely the problem.
People are criminals guilty of crime whether or not they go to trial, and
whether or not it gets reported.
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Eric Takabayashi
>I really should know better, but I'm going to stick my head up here
>and suggest a book by Wendy Kaminer: "It's All the Rage." She
>discusses some of the things being thrown around here, including
>"victim impact," and makes a pretty good case against those kinds of
>considerations as a step back to a revenge, rather than justice-based
>system of law.
Revenge? No, simple common sense. For example, why should a killer under the age
of 18, who did it ON PURPOSE, even planned it, escape jail or execution? Just
because they are young? If someone 20 in Japan is judged mature enough to be
punished or die, why is someone 19 and 365 days old in a leap year, NOT mature
enough?
And why should someone who COMMITTED a crime, get away just because one person
out of a panel of 12, is not convinced they did it?
Don't give me that lame "it's the law" or "it's the American way." Guilty
people, even murderers, are escaping justice as we speak.
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Eric Takabayashi
>http://www.salon.com/health/feature/1999/12/22/false_memory/
>http://www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton/re2rooum.htm
Yes, I've heard about this problem, and this hysteria. Now tell us how this is
relevant to, for example, the Okinawa rape case which just happened. Is that
woman also imagining it? Will you call her a liar? How about all other rape
victims everywhere?
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Eric Takabayashi
>> More important Mike, is, did the man actually commit the crime he was
>accused of?
>
>no, that is not more important. More important are the legal principals that
>have to be observed to ensure that all defendents, not just this one, get a
>fair trial. This includes a system that enforces lawyer-client
>confidentiality.
Lawyers who protect clients they know to be guilty or who withhold information
regarding a crime allowing criminals to go free, should be punished as
accessories or for obstructing justice, the same as if I rendered aid to
criminals.
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
mi...@redspark.org
I think it's ironic that Mr Takabayashi so assiduously promoting lawbreaking
in this instance.
Mike
marc
In the short term you might be right, but in the long term it would be
self-defeating. If defendents could not trust their lawyers they wouldn't
tell them incriminating information in the first place.
Which is why there is an adversarial system of prosecuting and defending
lawyers. It is the job of the prosecuting lawyer to show that the person is
guilty. The defending attorney has a special and perhaps in some cases
artificial role; to act as if the person is truly innocent regardless of
what the truth is. Then when you get to court the chips have to fall where
they may. If you obviate the role of the defending attorney by allowing
him/her to become a party to your prosecution, what is the purpose of having
a defending attoney at all?
In practice, most defending lawyers don't discuss the issue of "did you do
it?" with their clients, and usually advise them not to bring the subject
up.
Jason Cormier
Which is why there is a trial; something you seem to want to skip
altogether.
Ok Eric, one of my friends said that *you* raped her. She says it's true so
please bring yourself to the nearest detention centre for execution. We'll
put together a fund for your children's education.
Jason Cormier
> Revenge? No, simple common sense. For example, why should a killer under
the age
> of 18, who did it ON PURPOSE, even planned it, escape jail or execution?
Just
> because they are young? If someone 20 in Japan is judged mature enough to
be
> punished or die, why is someone 19 and 365 days old in a leap year, NOT
mature
> enough?
So, if we move it to 19, why is 19 NOT mature enough?
Then...why isn't 17 NOT mature enough?
Then...why isn't 17 NOT mature enough?
Then...why isn't 17 NOT mature enough?
Jason Cormier
the age
> of 18, who did it ON PURPOSE, even planned it, escape jail or execution?
Just
> because they are young? If someone 20 in Japan is judged mature enough to
be
> punished or die, why is someone 19 and 365 days old in a leap year, NOT
mature
> enough?
So, if we move it to 19, why is 19 NOT mature enough?
Then...why isn't 17 NOT mature enough?
Then...why isn't 16 NOT mature enough?
Then...why isn't 15 NOT mature enough?
Then...why isn't 14 NOT mature enough?
Then...why isn't 13 NOT mature enough?
Then...why isn't 12 NOT mature enough?
Then...why isn't 11 NOT mature enough?
Then...why isn't 10 NOT mature enough?
Then...why isn't 9 NOT mature enough?
Then...why isn't 8 NOT mature enough?
Then...why isn't 7 NOT mature enough?
Hell, let's fry a toddler if they push their twin brother out of the
carriage and he dies.
> And why should someone who COMMITTED a crime, get away just because one
person
> out of a panel of 12, is not convinced they did it?
They don't. Do you have any clue about criminal procedure? You have heard of
a hung jury? A retrial?
> Don't give me that lame "it's the law" or "it's the American way." Guilty
> people, even murderers, are escaping justice as we speak.
So let's remove all safety nets to prevent the innocent from being wrongly
convicted in order to get them. You seem convinced that the innocent will be
k but you want to remove all the procedures that help ensure this.
Do you think?
Eric Takabayashi
For God's sake, call me Eric.
>I think it's ironic that Mr Takabayashi so assiduously promoting lawbreaking
>in this instance.
Aiding and abetting criminals, or being an accessory to crime, ARE crimes, and
bigger crimes than commendable defense lawyers who understandably have
conscience pangs regarding protecting criminals, who spill "secrets." (I suppose
you do not like Grisham books, in which young lawyers try to make a healthy
profit by doing good.) Why should providing information which may be vital to
cracking a case ("Here's how I did it and where I hid the weapon, the money and
the body. You're the only one who knows.") be a crime?
If or when you get victimized by crime, you'd thank such an important source for
helping your case, when there is nothing better. Thank God for blabby criminals
and "honest" Japanese criminals who turn themselves in or confess.
If and when you get victimized by crime, do you want the criminals to get away?
If someone kills, they're a killer. If they rape, they're a rapist. If they rob
a bank, they're a bank robber. If they sell drugs, they are drug sellers. They
are criminals the instant they commit their crimes, and even if they escape
punishment. But you would find them NOT guilty and let them go, JUST because
their (former) lawyer "violated" their confidentiality? You would have the
lawyer disbarred, for trying to help?
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Eric Takabayashi
>In the short term you might be right, but in the long term it would be
>self-defeating. If defendents could not trust their lawyers they wouldn't
>tell them incriminating information in the first place.
In Japan, it is quite common for criminals to turn themselves in, even when the
police do not have them under suspicion, or despite police not knowing a crime
was committed at all. Japanese also confess quite readily to crime when the
police come for them, even before any alleged abuse in custody occurs. Thank God
for "honest" criminals.
>what is the purpose of having a defending attoney at all?
For protecting people who are falsely accused, or preventing people like
minorities, from being railroaded by biased judges or juries. It is unfair that
blacks who murder whites in the US are put to death many times more often than
whites who murder.
Murderers should be put to death equally.
It is unfair that blacks are sent to prison for their first drug offenses, while
whites escape prison.
They should be imprisoned equally.
>In practice, most defending lawyers don't discuss the issue of "did you do
>it?" with their clients, and usually advise them not to bring the subject
>up.
Yet Larry Elder's legal source tells him that most defense attornies indeed
know. Pretty hard NOT to know, when they must coach their clients in precisely
what to say and how to respond to difficult questions.
Even ignorance does not excuse a defense attorney from their reprehensible
behavior in a rape case, for example. I suppose the defense in the recent
Okinawa case will claim that the victim was drunk ("violently ill" in the
parking lot when the man approached, claims the Mainichi) and did not know what
happened, could not recognize her attacker, or that she was sexually promiscuous
and consented to sex with a gaijin stranger in a parked car, or that she even
liked SM stuff or rape fantasies like three guys holding her while another
screwed her, or that she had a thing for gaijin.
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Eric Takabayashi
>Excuse my impertinence, but I think the family was beyond caring what
>happened to their ice cream.
Perhaps it makes no difference to you, but a killer who feels confident enough
to hang around the scene of the crime and eat three containers of ice cream
after killing an entire family, probably noisily and messily with a knife, who
didn't even bother to wash their hands before opening the freezer and getting
the ice cream, and who was so methodical as to lay out the clothes they left
behind and laying in wait for the victims to return home, is no ordinary killer,
not some simple punk who snapped because he didn't like the way some stranger
looked at him in the street. This killer had prior intent. This killer was cold.
If the killer is caught and tried, such things could make the difference between
charges or findings of injury causing death, manslaughter, murder with chance of
parole, life without parole, and capital murder. It could make the difference
between walking free (nah, they're under 20 and they're remorseful) or being
executed.
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Louise Bremner
> And how do you eat ice-cream in a foreign style?
After slaughtering the rightful owners of said ice-cream, of course.
________________________________________________________________________
Louise Bremner (log at gol dot com)
If you want a reply by e-mail, write to my GOL address!
Eric Takabayashi
>So, if we move it to 19, why is 19 NOT mature enough?
>
>Then...why isn't 17 NOT mature enough?
>
>Then...why isn't 17 NOT mature enough?
>Then...why isn't 17 NOT mature enough?
You're starting to get the picture. Those elementary age kids who stole their
grandpa's rifles and van, and shot five schoolmates and a teacher because one of
the boys felt rejected by those girls? Those kids in the UK who beat the baby to
death and laid him across the tracks to be cut in half, who will be released at
age 18 with their identities protected, even given fake histories, by the
government who would set them free?
You already know what I want done to them.
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Scott Reynolds
>
> Scott Reynolds says...
>
> >I think the question, Eric, is what to do when "we" (i.e., the court) do
> >not know whether or not the accused is guilty.
>
> Don't know? CAN'T know? (Such as in the Setagaya case with entire family dead,
> or two women stabbed dead in their own residences in Fukuyama, or three lone
> women stabbed dead on the island of Kauai, and no one who saw anything useful -
> this is why we need increased monitoring.) Then investigate and prove it.
Okay. But sometimes it is not possible to obtain sufficient evidence to
prove guilt beyond the shadow or a doubt. Sometimes the evidence is
contradictory.
> (Let the majority of jurors decide, not require all of them, to declare guilt.
> There can always be one joker who decides not to declare someone guilty, just to
> be contrary, because they fall in love with the defendant, or because they
> sympathize with the color of their skin; letting criminals, even killers, get
> away scot free.)
Hell, why not just believe whatever the cops say. If they arrested him,
and the prosecutor charged him, he *must* be guilty, right?
> But if, for example, a guy with two knives climbs into the window of a school
> and stabs 26 people, with perhaps hundreds of witnesses, AND he tells the police
> and his lawyer he did it? Why waste victim or survivors' time and my tax money
> on a trial? What difference does it make if the judge, prosecutor, police or we
> did not see it for ourselves?
Yeah! Why not let the cops carry out sentence immediately as soon as
they catch a suspect? Then we wouldn't need any judges or juries or
lawyers.
And of course we know that there will only be one punishment, regardless
of the crime. Right, Eric?
_______________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
Scott Reynolds
>
> Brett Robson says...
>
> >criminal cases in every civilised country.
>
> So tell me why, if innocent, you would tell your lawyer that you were in fact,
> guilty, and why that lawyer should pretend you are innocent.
Bet you never thought of that one, Brett. I've got to admit that Eric's
argument here is pretty darn convincing.
After all, it is not possible that the lawyer was lying. We all know
that lawyers are all fine upstanding individuals who would never, ever
tell an untruth.
> >How do we know someone did it? Because we read about it in the press?
>
> Because, for example, it happened to you, as in, you know the man who raped you,
> or there were witnesses.
But none of the above applies to you with regard to the Ikeda case, so
how can you say you know this Takuma guy did it?
_______________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
Scott Reynolds
Eric.
_______________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
Eric Takabayashi
>Hell, let's fry a toddler if they push their twin brother out of the
>carriage and he dies.
Nah, toddlers don't understand death or causing death. Elementary school kids
who deliberately shoot five schoolmates and a teacher in the heads with rifles,
do.
>Do you have any clue about criminal procedure? You have heard of
>a hung jury? A retrial?
I've heard of them. And people who commit crimes go free, because for example, a
juror falls in love with the defendant, feels sympathy for the color of their
skin, or is just too damned stubborn. Have you heard of that?
>So let's remove all safety nets
Who said all?
I'm not talking about safety nets for the innocent, I'm talking about ways
GUILTY criminals escape just punishment. Oh, the criminal's lawyer revealed the
criminal confessed to him, so the criminal is not guilty, and the lawyer's
future is in jeopardy. Oh, the search was "illegal," therefore the criminal is
not guilty. Oh, the police tricked or hit the criminal before he confessed to
the crime he indeed committed, therefore he is not guilty. The judge or jury is
fooled into thinking the criminal feels remorse, or feels sympathy for their
color or upbringing, therefore they are not guilty. Oh, the defense lawyer fell
asleep, therefore the criminal is not guilty. Oh, the policeman refers to blacks
as the N word, therefore the criminal is not guilty. Oh, the translator was no
good, therefore the criminal is not guilty. Oh, the criminal ate too many
Twinkies, therefore they are not guilty. Oh, the rape victim is too ashamed or
afraid to come forward or testify, therefore there is no case, the criminals are
never tried or punished.
That's bull. And that is the system you and others support, and claim there is
nothing better than. That is bull, too.
>to prevent the innocent from being wrongly convicted in order to get them.
No, to get criminals. Innocent people should be left alone.
>You seem convinced that the innocent will be
>k but you want to remove all the procedures that help ensure this.
There are many ways to protect the innocent without letting criminals walk like
we do today. You just don't want to try to think of any AT ALL, claiming that
there is nothing better than what we have now, and you do not support capital
punishment either. Why don't YOU offer an alternative, instead of saying I
support a totalitarian state?
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Eric Takabayashi
>Hell, why not just believe whatever the cops say. If they arrested him,
>and the prosecutor charged him, he *must* be guilty, right?
No, they're guilty if they did it, the instant they did it. Which part do you
not understand?
>Yeah! Why not let the cops carry out sentence immediately as soon as
>they catch a suspect? Then we wouldn't need any judges or juries or
>lawyers.
If someone is guilty, no, there is not need for any judges, juries, or trials.
>And of course we know that there will only be one punishment, regardless
>of the crime. Right, Eric?
What are you talking about?
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Eric Takabayashi
>After all, it is not possible that the lawyer was lying. We all know
>that lawyers are all fine upstanding individuals who would never, ever
>tell an untruth.
You pretend it is not possible the lawyer is telling the truth, that lawyers
would not indeed feel they need to come forward with crucial evidence in a case.
>But none of the above applies to you with regard to the Ikeda case, so
>how can you say you know this Takuma guy did it?
Maybe hundreds of people saw him doing it.
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Eric Takabayashi
>> Other than the lawyer's word, who stated he was guilty?
>
>Eric.
How do you know he is not guilty? Will you apply the same legal standard to
prove the lawyer is lying? Do you not beleive that defense attornies do indeed
know that their clients are guilty?
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Eric Takabayashi
>Ok Eric, one of my friends said that *you* raped her. She says it's true so
>please bring yourself to the nearest detention centre for execution. We'll
>put together a fund for your children's education.
You don't get it. Either criminals are guilty (they did what they are accused
of) or not. Arrest and trials do not change that fact.
Put a little more detail into this claim, so I can sue your fucking ass.
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Ken Nicolson
Takabayashi<et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> wrote:
>Ken Nicolson says...
>
>>If there is no evidence, if the victim and suspect's words are
>>irrelevant, how is "what actually happened" determined?
>
>The person is EITHER guilty (they did what they are accused of) or not. They are
>not "found" guilty or not guilty. This "determining" is precisely the problem.
Sorry, you're not making sense, unless you wish to have some
omni-present Big Brother watching every public and private space, in
which case there *is* evidence of the crime.
In the case of Takuma, for instance, I can understand (but not agree
with) your frustration at due process being carried out, and being
seen to be carried out, but there there is lots of evidence,
witnesses, etc, etc, etc.
>People are criminals guilty of crime whether or not they go to trial, and
>whether or not it gets reported.
Oh, are you talking about guilt before God or some-such now? I was
under the impression we were discussing criminal responsibility, not
moral responsibility, which is another kettle of fish. WTO protesters
and abortion doctor murderers (or even Timothy McVeigh) surely feel no
moral guilt in their actions, but are criminally responsible.
>Eric Takabayashi
Ken
Ken Nicolson
Takabayashi<et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> wrote:
>Don't give me that lame "it's the law" or "it's the American way." Guilty
>people, even murderers, are escaping justice as we speak.
And even with all these stringent qualifications, innocent people are
still being sentenced to death by "the American way".
>Eric Takabayashi
Ken
Eric Takabayashi
>Sorry, you're not making sense, unless you wish to have some
Why? Someone is guilty, or not, in spite of whatever else is said or done.
>omni-present Big Brother watching every public and private space, in
>which case there *is* evidence of the crime.
You seem to have missed the thread in which someone introduced the term
"complete monitoring."
>In the case of Takuma, for instance, I can understand (but not agree
>with) your frustration at due process being carried out, and being
>seen to be carried out, but there there is lots of evidence,
>witnesses, etc, etc, etc.
THANK GOD SOMEONE CAN FINALLY UNDERSTAND.
>>People are criminals guilty of crime whether or not they go to trial, and
>>whether or not it gets reported.
>
>Oh, are you talking about guilt before God or some-such now? I was
>under the impression we were discussing criminal responsibility, not
>moral responsibility, which is another kettle of fish. WTO protesters
>and abortion doctor murderers (or even Timothy McVeigh) surely feel no
>moral guilt in their actions, but are criminally responsible.
Criminals are responsible, the instant they commit their crime, whether or not
the crime is reported or prosecuted. They are killers as soon as the victim is
dead. They are not "guilty" or "not guilty" just because someone "finds" them to
be so. God has nothing to do with it.
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Brett Robson
Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>
> Brett Robson says...
>
> >That is not quaint, it is not trite, it is the basis of law.
>
> Everywhere? Not every country lets criminals get away, just cuz one person out
> of many thinks they didn't do it, or was unconvinced they did do it, as in the
> US or Japan.
>
> >> Now finish this sentence for me:
> >>
> >> "If my wife or daughter get raped by an acquaintence, with no physical injury,
> >> so it is simply her word against his, I want the rapist to go free because ... "
> >
> >... you can track him down and kill him yourself.
>
> Thanks for taking that seriously.
I don't respond to analogies or hythopeticals.
But you are focused on revenge.
Eric Takabayashi
>And even with all these stringent qualifications, innocent people are
>still being sentenced to death by "the American way".
You are correct. Which is why I do not support that way, any more than I support
killers walking free.
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Eric Takabayashi
>I don't respond to analogies or hythopeticals.
Maybe because you like to pretend crime is not your problem, or something that
can happen to you. So you and others hide behind lame laws instead of how you'd
like the law to act in a real situation such as crime happening to YOU. Yeah,
I'm sure you will accept someone who killed your family walking free on a
technicality such as, their lawyer talked; because that's the way the system is
set up.
>But you are focused on revenge.
No, justice.
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Ken Nicolson
Takabayashi<et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> wrote:
>Ken Nicolson says...
>
>>http://www.salon.com/health/feature/1999/12/22/false_memory/
>>http://www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton/re2rooum.htm
>
>Yes, I've heard about this problem, and this hysteria.
But, you were agreeing with Brett advocating revenge killing, in
message ID yRi07.5508$Kf3....@www.newsranger.com for instance. The
two links I presented to you suggested how someone's word about abuse
with no physical evidence was in fact mistaken. You seem to be
advocating forgoing due process to discover the facts, but instead
bumping off the accused as your daughter's or wife's word is not to be
questioned.
>Now tell us how this is
>relevant to, for example, the Okinawa rape case which just happened. Is that
>woman also imagining it?
I guessed you'd change the subject by bringing this up.
The trial, if there is one, will centre around consent, I would guess,
as there seems to be enough evidence that he was the one involved.
You'll notice that the BBC web site still uses the word "alleged" and
mentions the suspect says it was consensual:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1419000/1419859.stm
>Will you call her a liar?
Nope, as I don't know all the facts. I won't call the GI one either,
until I read more evidence.
>How about all other rape
>victims everywhere?
"When did you stop beating your wife?" and other ad hominems don't do
your case any good.
>Eric Takabayashi
Ken
Brett Robson
I don't think you can sue someone's ass. And I certainly doubt you could
find someone who would take on Jasons ass, oops, arse.
--
Brett Robson
Aichi Prefecture, Japan
real address: brettr at newsguy dot com
"All that I am and all I'll ever be is a breathing body
And all that I know and all I'll ever see, is the real things around me
All I know, and it's true, there ain't no god there's just me and you"
Regurgitator
Scott Reynolds
> What cracks me up is the fact that they had this "journalist" on TV the
> other night saying that with that kind of ice cream-eating style (nado),
> there is good reason to suspect that the killer was a "gaikokujin."
It's that criminal DNA.
_______________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
Scott Reynolds
>
> Scott Reynolds says...
>
> >Hell, why not just believe whatever the cops say. If they arrested him,
> >and the prosecutor charged him, he *must* be guilty, right?
>
> No, they're guilty if they did it, the instant they did it. Which part do you
> not understand?
How we are supposed to know if they are guilty or not.
> >Yeah! Why not let the cops carry out sentence immediately as soon as
> >they catch a suspect? Then we wouldn't need any judges or juries or
> >lawyers.
>
> If someone is guilty, no, there is not need for any judges, juries, or trials.
Okay! Come on Judge Dread.
> >And of course we know that there will only be one punishment, regardless
> >of the crime. Right, Eric?
>
> What are you talking about?
Why THE punishment, of course. The only question is now to carry it out.
Bullet between the eyes? Beheading? Hanging from the nearest tree? (This
last one might be somewhat impractical in Japan.)
_______________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
Scott Reynolds
Yes, I don't believe that. Er, I mean I believe that defense attorneys
often do not know whether or not their clients are guilty.
_______________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
Scott Reynolds
>
> Scott Reynolds says...
>
> >After all, it is not possible that the lawyer was lying. We all know
> >that lawyers are all fine upstanding individuals who would never, ever
> >tell an untruth.
>
> You pretend it is not possible the lawyer is telling the truth, that lawyers
> would not indeed feel they need to come forward with crucial evidence in a case.
I pretend no such thing. You are putting words in my mouth.
In any case, a lawyer who violates attorney-client privilege is like a
priest who violates the privacy of the confessional. Both actions are
exceedingly unethical, and would cast serious doubts on the reliability
of the testimony of someone who did them.
> >But none of the above applies to you with regard to the Ikeda case, so
> >how can you say you know this Takuma guy did it?
>
> Maybe hundreds of people saw him doing it.
But not YOU, right?
_______________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
Scott Reynolds
> There are many ways to protect the innocent without letting criminals walk like
> we do today.
Okay, fine. Why don't you tell us about some of them?
_______________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
Ken Nicolson
And please enlighten us all what justice system you envisage that will
result in every suspect being processed correctly; all the free go
free, all the guilty get banged up, all with the minimum of time and
money.
>Eric Takabayashi
Ken
Jason Cormier
"Eric Takabayashi" <et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:npB07.6867$Kf3....@www.newsranger.com...
> If someone is guilty, no, there is not need for any judges, juries, or
trials.
Oh for chirssakes Eric, quit dicking around and tell us how this will be
done if there is no confession? You keep telling us how it should be but
never offer a way for it to be done. You're nothing more than a serial
whiner without solutions.
Jason Cormier
> >Hell, let's fry a toddler if they push their twin brother out of the
> >carriage and he dies.
>
> Nah, toddlers don't understand death or causing death. Elementary school
kids
> who deliberately shoot five schoolmates and a teacher in the heads with
rifles,
> do.
Please present your qualifications/experience in the area of child
psychology and criminology before I take any of what you have written above
as nothing more than a reactionary piece of drivel based on nothing but your
own fact-challenged reasoning.
> >Do you have any clue about criminal procedure? You have heard of
> >a hung jury? A retrial?
>
> I've heard of them. And people who commit crimes go free, because for
example, a
> juror falls in love with the defendant, feels sympathy for the color of
their
> skin, or is just too damned stubborn. Have you heard of that?
You mean like the juror in Vancouver who went to jail for it and the
defendant that was retried (and found guilty)? Sorry Eric, but your
scenarios usually end up digging your whole even deeper.
Now, to get away from examples, you have clearly proven that you have
absolutely no concept of what a hung jury involves and the consequences for
the defendant. Why should anything you post on the topic of criminal justice
be granted any merit whatsoever when you don't even understand the
procedures against which you are arguing? Do research, lots of it, and come
back when you are actually ready to argue this with more than your poorly
controlled emotions.
> >So let's remove all safety nets
>
> Who said all?
>
> I'm not talking about safety nets for the innocent, I'm talking about ways
> GUILTY criminals escape just punishment.
Read my previous paragraph and substitute "safety nets" for "hung jury".
> That's bull. And that is the system you and others support, and claim
there is
> nothing better than. That is bull, too.
Yet you have offered nothing....I repeat, nothing, in its place that has any
basis in reality.
> >to prevent the innocent from being wrongly convicted in order to get
them.
>
> No, to get criminals. Innocent people should be left alone.
*sigh* Repeat paragraph.
> >You seem convinced that the innocent will be
> >k but you want to remove all the procedures that help ensure this.
>
> There are many ways to protect the innocent without letting criminals walk
like
> we do today. You just don't want to try to think of any AT ALL,
Eric...irony...learn it.
> claiming that
> there is nothing better than what we have now, and you do not support
capital
> punishment either. Why don't YOU offer an alternative, instead of saying I
> support a totalitarian state?
Because you do. Why should I offer an alternative when the basic system
seems to be functioning? You love to quote specific cases but the bandwidth
wouldn't handle the millions and millions of cases that would refute those
and prove them to be the exceptions.
Jason Cormier
> You're starting to get the picture. Those elementary age kids who stole
their
> grandpa's rifles and van, and shot five schoolmates and a teacher because
one of
> the boys felt rejected by those girls? Those kids in the UK who beat the
baby to
> death and laid him across the tracks to be cut in half, who will be
released at
> age 18 with their identities protected, even given fake histories, by the
> government who would set them free?
>
> You already know what I want done to them.
Yes I do. Because you are a barbarian, plain and simple. You wrap in all
sorts of unconvincing concern for your family but, in the end, you are a
bloodthirsty man whom I would trust far less than many of the criminals you
so desperately want killed. At least they are in custody while you are not
only free but *shudder* responsible for young children. I cringe at what
your children can expect from you if they misbehave.
Jason Cormier
How ironic. Acquitted rape suspects are merely slimy criminals who
manipulate the system to get away with their crimes while the poor accusers
are left open to unfair suspicion of false accusations.
You, on the other hand, are outraged....outraged, I say...at the thought of
being accused of something which you did not do.
Not only are you bloodthirsty but you're a whiney little hypocrite. Perhaps
this is also an executable offense in your police state. Better bring
yourself to the detention centre, just in case. The offer of the fund
stands, either way.
Greg Macdonald
spake:
Why, we just need to hire a lot of people with Eric's omnipotent
knowledge of who is guilty and who is not.
Either that, or create a complete Big Brother state with constant
monitoring of all citizens, carried out by a benevolent dictatorship.
Hmmm... which one of those solutions is more feasibile?
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
"A woman came up to be and said
I'd like to poison your mind
With wrong ideas that appeal to you
Though I am not unkind"
-They Might Be Giants "Whistling in the Dark"
Greg Macdonald
gmacdonald11@NOSPAM home.com
biku
A man enters a supposedly empty flat to see
what he can steal. The wife surprises him and he
kills her. Now only 2 people know who the killer is
and one is dead. The husband comes home calls the
police and is found crying, holding the body and
covered in blood. Assuming the actual murderer doesn't
confess, who is punished for this crime. And how do
we insure that the "innocent" in this case the husband,
doesn't get convicted in error.
With all its flaws, the system is there for a reason. The best
we can do is hope it works.
Biku
"Eric Takabayashi" <et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> wrote in message
>
> Why? Someone is guilty, or not, in spite of whatever else is said or done.
>
snip......
marc
> marc says...
>
> >In the short term you might be right, but in the long term it would be
> >self-defeating. If defendents could not trust their lawyers they wouldn't
> >tell them incriminating information in the first place.
>
> In Japan, it is quite common for criminals to turn themselves in, even
when the
> police do not have them under suspicion, or despite police not knowing a
crime
> was committed at all. Japanese also confess quite readily to crime when
the
> police come for them, even before any alleged abuse in custody occurs.
Thank God
> for "honest" criminals.
so you take the 99% conviction rate and the standard practice of convicting
based on prisoner confessions as an indication that the Japanese justice
system functions? Seems to me that in this kind of system the judgement over
guilt or innocence is bascially in the hands of the police and the
prosecutors, not the courts.
biku
if a person is guilty or not? Who makes this decision?
Unless there is a confession (and in Japan those are not
always what they seem) who is to make the final
decision on the validity of the evidence? I agree there is
only guilty and not guilty. If they didn't do it then they are
not guilty, if they did then they are. But who determines
they did it?
Biku
"Eric Takabayashi" <et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> wrote in message
>
Eric Takabayashi
>Why, we just need to hire a lot of people with Eric's omnipotent
>knowledge of who is guilty and who is not.
I claim no such ability. We need more security and cops, and better placed,
though. Yes, that would certainly be good. None of this 40 minute response time
that I've encountered. It is no wonder police now can't stop rape or murder.
>Either that, or create a complete Big Brother state with constant
>monitoring of all citizens, carried out by a benevolent dictatorship.
That's more like it. But why does it need to be a dictatorship, to have such
monitoring? The UK and the US are capable of such monitoring now. The UK even
has a system which can automatically identify faces caught on their public
surveillance system, under test conditions.
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Eric Takabayashi
>Ok Eric, but the question is how do you determine if a person is guilty or not?
Goddamn it. Did ANYONE notice the little exchange I had with Scott the other
day? "Don't know? CAN'T know? Then investigate and prove it" under a system
similar to, but stronger than, what the US has now. None of those technicalities
like the cops didn't have a warrant when they raided that drug den, or the
lawyer violated confidentiality when revealing the criminal's confession.
In the future, with more surveillance (this is a when, not an if), the
authorities will have better means of preventing crime and proving guilt.
But in an open and shut case, like someone openly stabbing and killing in a
crowded space like a school building with maybe hundreds of witnesses, or those
idiots who slashed people in crowded streets, or hijacking a bus with hostages,
on camera, why bother?
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Eric Takabayashi
>But, you were agreeing with Brett advocating revenge killing, in
>message ID yRi07.5508$Kf3....@www.newsranger.com for instance. The
>two links I presented to you suggested how someone's word about abuse
>with no physical evidence was in fact mistaken. You seem to be
You are talking about stuff that happened years ago, probably in childhood, and
"revealed" in therapy. This is not stuff that happened recently.
>advocating forgoing due process to discover the facts, but instead
>bumping off the accused as your daughter's or wife's word is not to be
>questioned.
So what will you do when your wife or daughter come to you with a claim of rape?
Will you play the rapist's defense attorney, or will you support your wife or
daughter?
>>Now tell us how this is
>>relevant to, for example, the Okinawa rape case which just happened. Is that
>>woman also imagining it?
>
>I guessed you'd change the subject by bringing this up.
Wrong. It is you who bring up something irrelevant like implanted false
memories, years after the fact, when I am talking about rape or revenge right
now.
>The trial, if there is one, will centre around consent, I would guess,
No, I am certain they will try to prove the woman was drunk and couldn't
remember or think clearly. The proof which got the warrant so far was the
fingerprints of both parties in the car. We don't know about any physical
evidence of rape such as DNA or hair combings. There were also the three others
supposedly holding her down.
They will also probably try to portray the woman as loose.
>as there seems to be enough evidence that he was the one involved.
Oh, and how do YOU know? Because the British news says so? Why can you make such
an allegation, and based on a foreign source, while I cannot?
>You'll notice that the BBC web site still uses the word "alleged" and
>mentions the suspect says it was consensual:
Of course the BBC says alleged, and the suspect says it was consensual.
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1419000/1419859.stm
>
>>Will you call her a liar?
>
>Nope, as I don't know all the facts. I won't call the GI one either,
>until I read more evidence.
And why do YOU believe what you read, and why am I not allowed to believe or
comment?
>>How about all other rape victims everywhere?
>
>"When did you stop beating your wife?" and other ad hominems don't do
>your case any good.
What the hell are you talking about? It is YOU who are questioning the claims of
rape victims, with your irrelevant links to falsely implanted memories years
after the fact, in "therapy."
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Eric Takabayashi
>so you take the 99% conviction rate and the standard practice of convicting
>based on prisoner confessions as an indication that the Japanese justice
>system functions? Seems to me that in this kind of system the judgement over
>guilt or innocence is bascially in the hands of the police and the
>prosecutors, not the courts.
You are changing the subject. Address the issue I brought up:
"It is quite common for Japanese criminals to turn themselves in, despite not
being under suspicion, despite police not even knowing a crime has been
committed, and Japanese readily confess to crimes BEFORE any alleged abuse in
custody."
Japan's alleged 99% conviction rate, does not mean that 99% of people in custody
are convicted of a crime, or that 99% confess to some crime. Nor does Japan's
high rate of "cleared" cases (they have in the past bragged they are better than
other industrialized nations such as the UK or the US), mean that so many crimes
are actually solved. Not even close. Read the Summary of the White Paper on
Crime 1998, the latest.
http://www.moj.go.jp/ENGLISH/RATI/1998/rati-02.html
The clearance rate (percentage of reported offenses which were cleared) for
Penal Code offenses, other than traffic professional negligence, was 40.0
percent in 1997 . . . The rate for homicide has always exceeded 95 percent
during the last ten years. That for robbery has marked around 80 percent since
1993. The clearance rate for larceny has been in the 30 percentile since 1990.
[end]
"The clearance rate (percentage of reported offenses which were cleared) for
Penal Code offenses, other than traffic professional negligence, was 40.0
percent." 40 percent. This is how few reported crimes Japanese police make
progress on. They claim that "The rate for homicide has always exceeded 95
percent . . . " How interesting they cannot solve ANY of the reported Fukuyama
killings, then, such as the pachinko robbery shooting, or two separate stabbings
of women in their own homes, or that no progress is made in such a high profile
case as the Setagaya family murder. The Japanese police aren't much good at
solving thefts, either. It is no wonder that investigator I know was so visibly
happy after catching that cat burglar who committed over 60 robberies in my
neighborhood.
http://www.moj.go.jp/ENGLISH/RATI/1998/rati-15.html
The breakdown of offenders by category of disposition was prosecution for formal
trial (4.8 percent), prosecution for summary proceedings (50.1 percent) and
suspension of prosecution (29.3 percent). The prosecution rate was 64.0 percent,
and the rate for suspension of prosecution was 34.8 percent. The prosecution
rate of Penal Code offenders (excluding traffic professional negligence
offenders) was 56.8 percent . . . , and the rate for suspension of prosecution
was 36.5 percent . . . , while the prosecution rate in regard to traffic
professional negligence was 14.6 percent . . . , and the rate for suspension of
prosecution for traffic professional negligence was 85.1 percent . . . The
prosecution rate of special law violations, excluding road traffic violations,
was 75.3 percent . . . , and the rate for suspension of prosecution was 21.8
percent . . . The prosecution rate of road traffic violations was 94.0 percent .
. , and the rate for suspension of prosecution regarding road traffic
violations was 5.6 percent . . .
[end]
Did you see? "Prosecution for formal trial (4.8 percent)." 4.8 percent. Jesus
Christ. And this is only based on the people actually taken into custody. 4.8
percent of the people taken into custody going to trial, is what the "99%
conviction rate" Japanese brag about, and what human rights advocates condemn,
is based on. "The prosecution rate was 64.0 percent . . . The prosecution rate
of Penal Code offenders (excluding traffic professional negligence offenders)
was 56.8 percent" 36.0 percent of all people taken into custody were NOT
prosecuted, and 43.2 percent of offenders excluding traffic professional
negligence offenders, (which would include theft, rape, assault, murder) were
NOT prosecuted.
http://www.moj.go.jp/ENGLISH/RATI/1998/rati-16.html
Among 358,583 cases disposed of at the public prosecutors offices in 1997,
excluding traffic professional negligence and road traffic violations, the rate
of cases in which suspects were arrested (arrest rate) was 29.7 percent (106,422
arrested offenders). The highest rates of arrest by category of offense were
rape (80.1 percent), robbery (74.1 percent), homicide (68.9 percent), violation
of the Stimulant Drugs Control Law (67.1 percent), violation of the Firearms and
Swords Control Law (46.9 percent), and extortion (46.3 percent).
Among arrests, the rate at which the public prosecutor made a request for
detention (request rate for detention) was 91.5 percent, and the rate at which
requests for detention were granted by judges was 99.9 percent.
[end]
Did you see? "The rate of cases in which suspects were arrested (arrest rate)
was 29.7 percent." This is how FEW people get arrested in Japan, despite all
those crimes. People get arrested in ONLY 29.7 percent of cases CLEARED. NOT
cases reported.
It is quite natural that the prosecutor would ask for detention in cases they
intend to prosecute (and remember how few that is), or that a judge would grant
that request.
http://www.moj.go.jp/ENGLISH/RATI/1998/rati-17.html
In 1996, the number of defendants finally adjudicated by district, family, and
summary courts in the first instance through formal trials was 63,701, up 5.2
percent over the previous year. Of those, one defendant was sentenced to death,
34 to life imprisonment, and 54 defendants (0.1 percent of the total) were
acquitted.
[end]
Oh, a **99.9%** rate of conviction. Wow. That sounds bad from the human rights
standpoint. People who care about human rights WOULD be suspicious. But take
note of how FEW trials there are. Just 63,701 trial defendants, of about a
MILLION suspects taken in by police. "Prosecution for formal trial (4.8
percent)" remember?
Just ONE defendant sentenced to death. This is what the death penalty opponents
are crowing about.
"The number of defendants sentenced through summary proceedings to a fine or
minor fine was 1,022,638."
This is not the kind of crime we are concerned about. People probably don't get
mere fines for rape or murder.
http://www.moj.go.jp/ENGLISH/RATI/1998/rati-19.html
[The average daily population of penal institutions] has increased for the past
five years, and in 1997, it was 50,091, up 3.5 percent over the previous year.
Of that number, the convicted prisoners were 40,977, up 3.7 percent, and
detainees awaiting trial were 8,859, up 2.6 percent.
[end]
There are millions of crimes reported in Japan each year. Just 41,000 convicted
people in prison doesn't worry me. It worries me that there are all those
criminals ("The rate of cases in which suspects were arrested (arrest rate) was
29.7 percent." NO arrest in 70.3 percent of cases CLEARED, not reported) NOT in
prison.
http://www.moj.go.jp/ENGLISH/RATI/1998/rati-20.html
The number of prisoners newly admitted to penal institutions in 1997 was 22,667,
an increase of 234 (1.0 percent) over the previous year. The breakdown of the
five largest categories of offenses of newly admitted prisoners in 1997 was as
follows: violations of the Stimulant Drugs Control Law (29.7 percent), larceny
(27.5 percent), fraud (6.8 percent), violations of the Road Traffic Law (5.9
percent), and bodily injury (5.2 percent).
[end]
ONLY 22,667 newly admitted prisoners, for all those crimes and trials.
The Japanese legal system certainly has its abuses. I've criticized them, too. I
will not discount any of those accounts brought up in the past few weeks. But it
is obvious that Japan is not railroading everyone they bring in, nor finding a
patsy to "solve" all those crimes.
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Greg Macdonald
Takabayashi<et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> spake:
>Greg Macdonald says...
>
>>Why, we just need to hire a lot of people with Eric's omnipotent
>>knowledge of who is guilty and who is not.
>
>I claim no such ability. We need more security and cops, and better placed,
>though. Yes, that would certainly be good. None of this 40 minute response time
>that I've encountered. It is no wonder police now can't stop rape or murder.
How many cops would be required to create the type of all-encompassing
enforcement you imagine is necessary? And how are you going to ensure
that this vast legion of police doesn't include corrupt or incompetent
officers?
>>Either that, or create a complete Big Brother state with constant
>>monitoring of all citizens, carried out by a benevolent dictatorship.
>
>That's more like it. But why does it need to be a dictatorship, to have such
>monitoring? The UK and the US are capable of such monitoring now. The UK even
>has a system which can automatically identify faces caught on their public
>surveillance system, under test conditions.
The US is certainly not capable of monitoring private residences,
because the vast majority of people do not want security cameras
running inside their homes. And who's monitoring these cameras? Who is
in charge of this vast police state you are advocating? I'm curious
how you're going to run a huge system of constant video monitoring
without bankrupting the country and/or imposing a huge loss of
personal freedom on the citizenry.
marc
> marc says...
>
> >so you take the 99% conviction rate and the standard practice of
convicting
> >based on prisoner confessions as an indication that the Japanese justice
> >system functions? Seems to me that in this kind of system the judgement
over
> >guilt or innocence is bascially in the hands of the police and the
> >prosecutors, not the courts.
>
> You are changing the subject. Address the issue I brought up:
Sorry Eric. I am happy to engage in civil discussions about topics that
interest me. But when someone demands I answer their particular line of
questions, I have no choice but to decline.
Jim Smiley
Eric's oily argument when he wrote
Eric asked these questions
> > Why waste victim or survivors' time and my tax money on a trial?
> > What difference does it make if the judge, prosecutor, police or we
> > did not see it for ourselves?
To which Scott replied
> Yeah! Why not let the cops carry out sentence immediately as soon as
> they catch a suspect? Then we wouldn't need any judges or juries or
> lawyers.
I wonder just how many laypeople out there would agree with Eric's
statement. There does seem to be an element of common sense inherent. I
can imagine this kind of argument occurring in a working mans' club and the
conclusion being that, in cases like the knife murder, a trial would be a
waste
of tax-payers money. Then, they would all return to their beers.
However, and this is a point that dear-old-Eric seems to have missed, it's
a question of systems. We are all aware that the human mind is exceedingly
capable of making for itself what it needs. Without some sort of enforceable
judicial system (which is just another way of validating a state's moral
code)
people would run riot. The term 'society', itself, implies a system of
controlling.
In the Osaka case, the trial will most probably be quick and cheap at the
same
time upholding those systems that bind us together. For, what will be a
relatively
low cost, we end up paying for our own protection and our own rights.
Jim
Jim Smiley
opinions of others when he wrote
> Revenge? No, simple common sense.
'Simple common sense' does not exist. At least, not in the
way you imagine it, Eric.
We all have different, highly personal, criteria upon which we
base our own, internal moral codes. Eric, I think that probably
you are a highly moral person in many ways. However, I also
believe that most people on this Earth are, too. The set of
rules that make up each societies systems are designed to iron
out those little bumps that individual preference can cause.
So, while it may sound like 'simple common sense' to say that
someone aged 19 and 365 days should be treated in the same
manner as someone who is exactly 20, it betrays the nature of
societal systems. For instance, do you think that it's okay for a
19+365 days person to buy alcohol or cigarettes in Japan? Why
not?
Jim
Eric Takabayashi
>How many cops would be required to create the type of all-encompassing
>enforcement you imagine is necessary?
Don't know. But enough, and stationed well enough, that they can respond to
crime when called, fast enough to deal with rapes, murders, and home intruders,
so people don't die while waiting. Enough that they can patrol and prevent or
discourage crime, so people like my former coworker, don't get grabbed under the
darkened train tracks on the way home and dragged to a car with no one to help
her.
>And how are you going to ensure that this vast legion of police doesn't include
>corrupt or incompetent officers?
Raise the requirements and monitor THEM better. Get rid of these bad ones like
senior officials who grab women on the train, screw student prostitutes or
falsify reports or evidence. Treat such criminals, like criminals. It's not easy
to be or become a police officer, but it should be damned harder. High school
education, pass a test, and some interviews, and months of training isn't good
enough.
>The US is certainly not capable of monitoring private residences,
>because the vast majority of people do not want security cameras
What Americans want or don't want is irrelevant to what already exists, and what
is already happening. I'm sure most people don't "want" people looking inside
their suitcases or being frisked at the airport, being watched in the department
store or changing rooms, or being pulled over by cops for a random check,
either. But that is life today, and how you live. The surveillance technology
exists now, the government is capable now, and it has been used. The US uses
backscatter X-ray machines to see inside vehicles for contraband and human
smuggling, and some similar device was used to see into (through) a man's house
to reveal that he was growing marijuana inside. There is a company in the US
which can implant a very small device to monitor the whereabouts of a pet or
human being at any time. I believe it was the issue of TIME I read on the flight
here a week and a half ago, which had a long article about this sort of
increased monitoring including that "see through vision" and implant, and the
privacy issues.
Yeah, that's it. That is so damned cool.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101010625-130987,00.html
But I am sorry to notice that it does not seem to be the entire piece. It's
missing the implant story, about one page, too. It is missing the graphics, for
sure.
>running inside their homes.
Why should a criminal be allowed to commit crime, even in their own homes, just
because police don't know about it? Home monitoring would stop a lot of domestic
abuse and sexual abuse, for sure, as well as provide evidence. Look how those
abusive nurses and babysitters were caught, even smothering a baby, on home
video cameras, as seen on American or Japanese shocking video type shows. They
never would have been caught otherwise. Such monitoring would lessen or
eliminate the need for victims of abuse too afraid to report their crime or
testify. That would be another 90% of rapists we could go after, and untold
future misery (their future crimes) we could prevent.
Why are you against this?
>And who's monitoring these cameras? Who is
Security personnel in the case of security, or the authorities in the case of
law enforcement. Maybe you, if you want to check up on your home or your child
at school. This technology, and this service, already exists. And the people
want or or DEMAND such service, particularly to check up on their children's
well being, or to snoop on their spouse, and THEY are willing to pay for it.
>in charge of this vast police state you are advocating? I'm curious
What vast police state? Such things are going on right now. It could happen with
our present government and elected officials. Your wife, girlfriend, mother or
employer, could be snooping on you right now.
>how you're going to run a huge system of constant video monitoring
>without bankrupting the country and/or imposing a huge loss of
>personal freedom on the citizenry.
Why does such a system need to bankrupt the country? Are department stores
bankrupted by their security systems? Have you seen the level of coverage at
Harrod's, for example? Damn. Are people bankrupted by installing Secom in their
home or hiring private detectives to snoop on or bug their spouse or children 24
hours a day? Is the FBI bankrupted by having a fingerprint bank, and why should
a DNA bank bankrupt them any more? Would the government not use taxes to pay for
government monitoring? Are companies bankrupted by performing urinalysis or
installing monitoring software? Did it bankrupt people in generations past, to
check up on their families and neighbors living in extended families and
maintaining a close knit community?
Why do you assume a "huge loss of personal freedom?" Do you feel a "huge loss of
personal freedom" the way you are being watched now, or the way you lived as a
child? I do not.
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Eric Takabayashi
>So, while it may sound like 'simple common sense' to say that
>someone aged 19 and 365 days should be treated in the same
Or that criminals should be punished, instead of walking free on lame laws like
his lawyer talked or the police didn't have a warrant.
>manner as someone who is exactly 20, it betrays the nature of
>societal systems. For instance, do you think that it's okay for a
>19+365 days person to buy alcohol or cigarettes in Japan?
No.
>Why not?
It's illegal. But more important, people shouldn't smoke or drink.
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Eric Takabayashi
>Sorry Eric. I am happy to engage in civil discussions about topics that
>interest me. But when someone demands I answer their particular line of
>questions, I have no choice but to decline.
Address the fact that the Japanese 99.9% conviction rate (in 1998) is in fact
meaningless, and that the Japanese system is in fact, NOT railroading people or
abusing their rights, anything like the way that figure, you or other posters,
suggest.
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Jim Smiley
wrote
I had said
> >So, while it may sound like 'simple common sense' to say that
> >someone aged 19 and 365 days should be treated in the same
>
> Or that criminals should be punished, instead of walking free on lame laws
like
> his lawyer talked or the police didn't have a warrant.
>
> >manner as someone who is exactly 20, it betrays the nature of
> >societal systems. For instance, do you think that it's okay for a
> >19+365 days person to buy alcohol or cigarettes in Japan?
>
> No.
>
> >Why not?
>
> It's illegal.
Ouch!
Eric, what makes actions legal or illegal? Why, and how, does society
fix these moral codes as law? Why do you think that you are above these
processes?
Jim
Eric Takabayashi
>Eric, what makes actions legal or illegal?
Uh, the existence of a relevant law?
>Why, and how, does society fix these moral codes as law?
Uh, enough people vote on a proposal or bitch to their representatives, or some
high up wants to; so a proposal is made which the parliamentary body or leader
of the country approves as law?
>Why do you think that you are above these processes?
Why am I not? You are a part of the legal process, too. Here in Japan you can be
part of a grassroots movement, join ISSHO or whatever.
Smoking is being restricted, even in Japan. That's a fact. I believe Japan,
despite the excuse "Japanese like to smoke" will see laws similar to that of
California or the rest of the US. The ultimate goal of these movements, I
believe, is to eliminate or outlaw smoking or sale of tobacco, period.
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Greg Macdonald
Takabayashi<et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> spake:
>Greg Macdonald says...
>
>>How many cops would be required to create the type of all-encompassing
>>enforcement you imagine is necessary?
>
>Don't know. But enough, and stationed well enough, that they can respond to
>crime when called, fast enough to deal with rapes, murders, and home intruders,
>so people don't die while waiting. Enough that they can patrol and prevent or
>discourage crime, so people like my former coworker, don't get grabbed under the
>darkened train tracks on the way home and dragged to a car with no one to help
>her.
How are they going to respond fast enough to deal with a rape or a
murder? The only cases where this would be relevant would be when the
victim is able to phone or otherwise call for help during the crime,
and the police would have to be there before the crime was finished.
How long does it take to kill someone? Seconds?
Having the streets crawling with cops might have some deterent factor
for property crime. I doubt the kind of crazed killer you imagine
stalking the streets is going to give a damn, though.
>>And how are you going to ensure that this vast legion of police doesn't include
>>corrupt or incompetent officers?
>
>Raise the requirements and monitor THEM better. Get rid of these bad ones like
>senior officials who grab women on the train, screw student prostitutes or
>falsify reports or evidence. Treat such criminals, like criminals. It's not easy
>to be or become a police officer, but it should be damned harder. High school
>education, pass a test, and some interviews, and months of training isn't good
>enough.
Where are all of these cops coming from? How much larger are you
making the police force? Twice as big? Three times? How many more
bureaucrats are going to be needed to monitor all these cops?
>>The US is certainly not capable of monitoring private residences,
>>because the vast majority of people do not want security cameras
>
>What Americans want or don't want is irrelevant to what already exists, and what
>is already happening. I'm sure most people don't "want" people looking inside
>their suitcases or being frisked at the airport, being watched in the department
>store or changing rooms, or being pulled over by cops for a random check,
>either. But that is life today, and how you live.
So they will happily agree to even more surveilance, including
monitoring of their private residences? Damn, even as a Canadian I
know the average Yank isn't going to put up with Uncle Sam putting a
camera into their homes.
>The surveillance technology
>exists now, the government is capable now, and it has been used. The US uses
>backscatter X-ray machines to see inside vehicles for contraband and human
>smuggling, and some similar device was used to see into (through) a man's house
>to reveal that he was growing marijuana inside.
Some Americans don't seem to be all that happy about being scanned
without permission...
http://www.as-e.com/inthenews/news.html (scroll to March 2, 2000 Wall
Street Journal)
Once again, being scanned at a border crossing is one thing, having my
home scanned is quite another.
>>running inside their homes.
>
>Why should a criminal be allowed to commit crime, even in their own homes, just
>because police don't know about it? Home monitoring would stop a lot of domestic
>abuse and sexual abuse, for sure, as well as provide evidence. Look how those
>abusive nurses and babysitters were caught, even smothering a baby, on home
>video cameras, as seen on American or Japanese shocking video type shows. They
>never would have been caught otherwise. Such monitoring would lessen or
>eliminate the need for victims of abuse too afraid to report their crime or
>testify. That would be another 90% of rapists we could go after, and untold
>future misery (their future crimes) we could prevent.
>Why are you against this?
Because you are attempting to catch criminals by throwing out the
privacy rights of every citizen, criminal or non-criminal. The State
has no business in what goes on in my house, unless they have enough
proof of wrongdoing that they can get a search warrant.
>>And who's monitoring these cameras? Who is
>
>Security personnel in the case of security, or the authorities in the case of
>law enforcement.
Who says these people can be trusted? Do I want some hired security
yahoo watching everything that goes on in my house? Are the police so
completely lamb-innocent that I trust them to monitor cameras in my
house. Fuck that.
> Maybe you, if you want to check up on your home or your child
>at school. This technology, and this service, already exists. And the people
>want or or DEMAND such service, particularly to check up on their children's
>well being, or to snoop on their spouse, and THEY are willing to pay for it.
That is ME checking on MY house, not you, or some hired security bozo.
Once again, if you have proof that something illegal is going on in my
house, then get a search warrant and come on in. Otherwise, get the
hell out.
>>in charge of this vast police state you are advocating? I'm curious
>
>What vast police state? Such things are going on right now. It could happen with
>our present government and elected officials. Your wife, girlfriend, mother or
>employer, could be snooping on you right now.
>
>>how you're going to run a huge system of constant video monitoring
>>without bankrupting the country and/or imposing a huge loss of
>>personal freedom on the citizenry.
>
>Why does such a system need to bankrupt the country? Are department stores
>bankrupted by their security systems? Have you seen the level of coverage at
>Harrod's, for example? Damn. Are people bankrupted by installing Secom in their
>home or hiring private detectives to snoop on or bug their spouse or children 24
>hours a day?
How many Americans would be able to easily afford such measures?
>Is the FBI bankrupted by having a fingerprint bank, and why should
>a DNA bank bankrupt them any more? Would the government not use taxes to pay for
>government monitoring? Are companies bankrupted by performing urinalysis or
>installing monitoring software? Did it bankrupt people in generations past, to
>check up on their families and neighbors living in extended families and
>maintaining a close knit community?
You are proposing a national system of video monitoring in private
homes and an increased police presence, to the point where even
property crimes will be completely deterred. I want to know how you
plan to pay for such a massive undertaking. And the best you can do is
to say that the system already exists. It doesn't, not on the scale
you are talking about.
>Why do you assume a "huge loss of personal freedom?" Do you feel a "huge loss of
>personal freedom" the way you are being watched now, or the way you lived as a
>child? I do not.
That's because the streets aren't crawling with cops armed with your
'guilty until proven innocent' mentality. Also because I don't live in
a society that thinks constant video surveillance in private homes is
necessary.
marc
them. It is just my policy. I respond to the collegial give-and-take type of
discussion, the refined cocktail-party type salon talk, usually accompained
by chilled Chardonney, coriander hor d'ouvres, and Miles Davis playing in
the background. I don't see any of that in your post.
In any case, I wouldn't know how to address something that you describe as a
"fact". If it is a "fact", there should be nothing to address.
-Marc
"Eric Takabayashi" <et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:QHQ07.7523$Kf3....@www.newsranger.com...
Ken Nicolson
Takabayashi<et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> wrote lots of stuff in his usual
style that if you don't agree 100% with his case, you must be
diametrically opposed:
>Ken Nicolson says...
>
>>But, you were agreeing with Brett advocating revenge killing, in
>>message ID yRi07.5508$Kf3....@www.newsranger.com for instance. The
>>two links I presented to you suggested how someone's word about abuse
>>with no physical evidence was in fact mistaken. You seem to be
>
>You are talking about stuff that happened years ago, probably in childhood, and
>"revealed" in therapy. This is not stuff that happened recently.
The Orkney Satanic abuse stuff was to do with kids who were perceived
as being in danger at that very moment in time, not in the distant
past.
>>advocating forgoing due process to discover the facts, but instead
>>bumping off the accused as your daughter's or wife's word is not to be
>>questioned.
>
>So what will you do when your wife or daughter come to you with a claim of rape?
>Will you play the rapist's defense attorney, or will you support your wife or
>daughter?
Wonderful debating style: I state I disagree with vigilante justice,
but rather in the judicial process, and you read that as supporting
rapists.
>>>Now tell us how this is
>>>relevant to, for example, the Okinawa rape case which just happened. Is that
>>>woman also imagining it?
>>
>>I guessed you'd change the subject by bringing this up.
>
>Wrong. It is you who bring up something irrelevant like implanted false
>memories, years after the fact, when I am talking about rape or revenge right
>now.
No, I already pointed out that Satanic abuse was believed to be in
progress at the time of the case.
>>The trial, if there is one, will centre around consent, I would guess,
>
>No, I am certain they will try to prove the woman was drunk and couldn't
>remember or think clearly.
Isn't that one form of consent, or lack thereof? I don't know the
Japanese legal definition of rape, but anyway, the exact charge is not
the key subject.
>The proof which got the warrant so far was the
>fingerprints of both parties in the car. We don't know about any physical
>evidence of rape such as DNA or hair combings. There were also the three others
>supposedly holding her down.
Supposed by whom? I've not seen that mentioned anywhere. The latest
from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1423000/1423383.stm
says that the suspect said the sex was consensual.
>They will also probably try to portray the woman as loose.
>
>>as there seems to be enough evidence that he was the one involved.
>
>Oh, and how do YOU know? Because the British news says so? Why can you make such
>an allegation, and based on a foreign source, while I cannot?
Well, the guy putting his hands up and saying he did it is usually a
big hint. Anyway, what cannot you say? What did I stop you saying? All
I did was repeat what I read on a web site.
>>You'll notice that the BBC web site still uses the word "alleged" and
>>mentions the suspect says it was consensual:
>
>Of course the BBC says alleged, and the suspect says it was consensual.
>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1419000/1419859.stm
>>
>>>Will you call her a liar?
>>
>>Nope, as I don't know all the facts. I won't call the GI one either,
>>until I read more evidence.
>
>And why do YOU believe what you read,
All I believe is that I can't automatically pick who to believe as
there isn't enough evidence.
>and why am I not allowed to believe or
>comment?
You are, just not unquestioningly. We are engaged in what may be (very
loosely) be described as a debate. You have stated one position, so I
am just pointing why I believe your position is untenable.
>>>How about all other rape victims everywhere?
>>
>>"When did you stop beating your wife?" and other ad hominems don't do
>>your case any good.
>
>What the hell are you talking about? It is YOU who are questioning the claims of
>rape victims,
No, of one specific *alleged* rape victim. There has been no trial
yet, nor even charges, as far as I know.
>with your irrelevant links to falsely implanted memories years
>after the fact, in "therapy."
>
>Eric Takabayashi
Ken
Eric Takabayashi
>How are they going to respond fast enough to deal with a rape or a
>murder? The only cases where this would be relevant would be when the
>victim is able to phone or otherwise call for help during the crime,
Which is why we need monitoring, so we don't always need to call and wait for
help, and why people need to be armed to protect themselves in the first place.
>and the police would have to be there before the crime was finished.
>How long does it take to kill someone? Seconds?
It COULD take seconds to kill someone, but that is not how these brutal killings
occur. Look at how long the Setagaya family killings or Ikeda killings took. How
long did it take to perform those random street slashings or the attacks with
the baseball bats? How long did it take the nearly 30 bosozoku just to kill one
14 year old Brazilian boy and assault ten others, or how long did it take the 70
punks to attack gaijin at random? Police could have saved most of them if they
moved their asses, or knew there was trouble.
Can't save everyone or prevent all crimes, but the surveillance would make it
easier to catch them and gather evidence, and the surveillance would prevent a
lot of crime to begin with.
>Having the streets crawling with cops might have some deterent factor
>for property crime. I doubt the kind of crazed killer you imagine
>stalking the streets is going to give a damn, though.
Doesn't matter whether or not they give a damn. They would get seen or caught
before (like breaking into the house or producing the weapon), during or after
the killings, and we'd have the evidence we need.
>Where are all of these cops coming from? How much larger are you
>making the police force? Twice as big? Three times? How many more
>bureaucrats are going to be needed to monitor all these cops?
That would need to be worked out at length. I don't know. Clinton tried to put
another 100,000 cops on the streets. I don't know how many new cops were put out
in his administration. There were a variety of factors, probably mainly the
strong economy, but crime went down.
If you are serious about this discussion, why don't you or anyone else, offer a
suggestion on such details, or suggest a better system than what we have now,
instead of taking potshots at me? Don't give me that "there's no better
alternative crap" that I keep hearing.
>So they will happily agree to even more surveilance, including
>monitoring of their private residences?
Of course not. But we (including you) accept being monitored as part of daily
life. Are you "happy" being monitored in the department store or even in the
changing room? Are you "happy" being checked at the airport, or being stopped by
police in your car? I doubt you are. But you so far have not even complained
about such monitoring, which already exists.
>Some Americans don't seem to be all that happy about being scanned
>without permission...
Some? Most? All? With few notable exceptions, I don't care. If everyone is being
watched, and the information is not abused (See Eric's penis online!), what do I
care even if some police officer is watching me having sex with my wife in my
own home, or watching me in the restroom?
>Once again, being scanned at a border crossing is one thing, having my
>home scanned is quite another.
Your home under surveillance, just could save your life or property. It's why
some people CHOOSE to take various security measures including installing
monitoring devices or spy software, and PAY for such measures themselves, even
if they are doing something as shallow as snooping on a family member.
>>Why are you against this?
>
>Because you are attempting to catch criminals by throwing out the
>privacy rights of every citizen, criminal or non-criminal. The State
>has no business in what goes on in my house, unless they have enough
>proof of wrongdoing that they can get a search warrant.
Not you, but how do we catch a guy abusing his own wife and kids, for example,
if the damage doesn't show? Can you recognize an incestuous family or a wife
beater on sight? Do you demand that the victims have the courage to perhaps risk
their own lives, to approach authorities?
What is your suggestion to help or save such people too afraid to seek help, who
indeed, may have no place to turn?
In hindsight, it could have been quite easy to see the warning signs in that
American woman who drowned all her kids in the bathtub one by one then laid them
out in their beds with the sheets covering them, before calling the police and
her husband. But nothing so far helped that woman, or saved her kids.
Surveillance and prompt action would not have allowed her to kill (all) her
kids.
>Who says these people can be trusted? Do I want some hired security
You know I don't "like" police, for example. But I find police and their
restrictions or intrusions so far, better than being a victim of crime. And I
know both.
>yahoo watching everything that goes on in my house? Are the police so
>completely lamb-innocent that I trust them to monitor cameras in my
>house. Fuck that.
Ok. (It doesn't really matter that people watch me, if they are also watching
everyone else, and not abusing that information.) So what's better?
>That is ME checking on MY house, not you, or some hired security bozo.
>Once again, if you have proof that something illegal is going on in my
>house, then get a search warrant and come on in. Otherwise, get the
>hell out.
There are crimes going on, and criminals allowed to operate, to continue to
operate, precisely because they are assumed to be unseen. What do you suggest to
stop such crime and prosecute such criminals?
>How many Americans would be able to easily afford such measures?
Depends on the cost and complexity of the system in the private home.
You could probably get an implanted locator and listening device using current
technology, to have your own body (or location) monitored, for a few hundred
dollars US. That company offering the body implants wants the implant to also
monitor bodily functions, to notify medical assistance if readings are at
dangerous levels. (Damn, that was a fine issue of TIME.) A government using tax
money, however, could be capable of nearly anything. They are pursuing
technologies and equipping themselves right now.
>You are proposing a national system of video monitoring in private
Yes I am.
>homes and an increased police presence, to the point where even
>property crimes will be completely deterred. I want to know how you
Not all crimes, sadly.
>plan to pay for such a massive undertaking. And the best you can do is
>to say that the system already exists. It doesn't, not on the scale
>you are talking about.
Not yet. How much is the US worth? Trillions of dollars? What are the holdings
of private citizens? Also trillions? You think that won't cut it? Why not?
>That's because the streets aren't crawling with cops armed with your
>'guilty until proven innocent' mentality. Also because I don't live in
What does us being monitored have to do with "guilty until proven innocent?"
That is not how I feel about what goes on in the airport, in the department
store dressing rooms, or when I get pulled over by cops for no reason.
>a society that thinks constant video surveillance in private homes is
>necessary.
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Eric Takabayashi
>The Orkney Satanic abuse stuff was to do with kids who were perceived
>as being in danger at that very moment in time, not in the distant
>past.
You're right about that. But that is not how those childhood sexual abuse false
memory therapy cases usually work.
>Wonderful debating style: I state I disagree with vigilante justice,
>but rather in the judicial process, and you read that as supporting
>rapists.
Why don't you just answer, and tell me what YOU would do if YOUR wife or
daughter came to you with a claim of rape? Who will YOU believe? The accused
(let's say you don't know anything at all) or your wife/daughter? Don't tell me
you will wait until the outcome of the TRIAL to decide who to believe or what to
do, or that YOU would not do something unadvisable.
>>The proof which got the warrant so far was the
>>fingerprints of both parties in the car. We don't know about any physical
>>evidence of rape such as DNA or hair combings. There were also the three others
>>supposedly holding her down.
>
>Supposed by whom? I've not seen that mentioned anywhere.
http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/news/archive/200106/29/20010629p2a00m0fp008005c.html
U.S. troops tied to gang-rape of Okinawa woman
CHATAN, Okinawa -- U.S. military troops are suspected in the gang-rape of a
young Japanese woman in a car park here early Friday, police said.
Police are questioning several U.S. servicemen as well as Japanese and American
civilians in connection with the rape.
The victim was a woman in her 20s, who said she was held down in a parking lot
by at least four men and raped by a black foreigner who fled in a car with U.S.
military license plates.
Police have confirmed that the woman was raped.
[end]
>The latest from
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1423000/1423383.stm
>says that the suspect said the sex was consensual.
Like I said, of course the suspect would say so. So what about the claims or
reports of "gang rape?"
>Well, the guy putting his hands up and saying he did it is usually a
>big hint. Anyway, what cannot you say? What did I stop you saying? All
>I did was repeat what I read on a web site.
And I spoke from reports like the above. The immediate question is, why do the
Mainichi or Japanese TV reports, differ from the BBC coverage? Is it just
something the BBC doesn't know (does the BBC have an office in Okinawa?), or are
the Japanese wrong? I do not make a practice of assuming claims of rape to be
lies or questionable, or waiting until trials to decide who to believe or
sympathize with.
>All I believe is that I can't automatically pick who to believe as
>there isn't enough evidence.
So if you please, why don't you tell me just what you think of the "alleged"
victim's claims RIGHT NOW, and how you would treat her if she were your friend,
BEFORE she went to the police, before any investigation, and before any trial or
verdict. Most times, I'd believe and support the woman right away. Maybe I'd
even do something illegal on her behalf. Wouldn't you?
>No, of one specific *alleged* rape victim. There has been no trial
>yet, nor even charges, as far as I know.
"Alleged victim." It just may be the accusation is false, or the victim or
police simply mistaken. But all the evidence and procedures demanded to prove
the accused committed a crime, beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, in the case
of the US. Why not, on such an "alleged" victim's behalf, do we not demand the
"alleged" criminal prove they did NOT commit a crime, beyond a reasonable doubt?
Why are an "alleged" criminal's rights more important than those of an "alleged"
victim?
Eric Takabayashi
Hawaii
Michael Cash
Takabayashi<et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> , never one to rest when there
are lies to be told, said:
>Jason Cormier says...
>
>>Ok Eric, one of my friends said that *you* raped her. She says it's true so
>>please bring yourself to the nearest detention centre for execution. We'll
>>put together a fund for your children's education.
>
>You don't get it. Either criminals are guilty (they did what they are accused
>of) or not. Arrest and trials do not change that fact.
>
>Put a little more detail into this claim, so I can sue your fucking ass.
>
Boy, talk about missing the fucking point.
And if I were you, I believe I would watch my indignation levels just
a bit, Mr. Death Threat Poster. It ain't like the statute of
limitations has run out on that yet, you know. And it ain't like Bryan
is the only one who can report it to the police either.
--
Michael Cash
"I rebuke thee! I rebuke thee! I rebuke thee!
Mr. Cash? Sorry... I mistook you for Satan.
An honest mistake, and one to which I am sure
you must be well accustomed."
Prof. Ernest T. Bass
Mount Pilot College
Michael Cash
>Jim Smiley says...
>
>>So, while it may sound like 'simple common sense' to say that
>>someone aged 19 and 365 days should be treated in the same
>
>Or that criminals should be punished, instead of walking free on lame laws like
>his lawyer talked or the police didn't have a warrant.
Notice that your statement begins with a presumption of guilt....as do
all your statements regarding crime. You should love the Japanese
system with its 98.8% conviction rate. Hell, they almost *never*
arrest the wrong guy.
A few years ago a judge in Sapporo got into a bit of hot water by
writing in newspapers that Japanese judges basically just rubber stamp
any and all warrant requests the police hand to them. May as well do
away with the whole warrant procedure if the judges aren't going to do
their job and protect the public by monitoring the police for abuses
of power. Figures for a recent year showed that nationwide Japanese
police requested about 420,000 arrest warrants. Know how many were
denied? I'll spare you the suspense. About 430. A little over
one-tenth of one percent.
Yet another judge remarked that when judges don't understand what is
in the arrest or search warrant request, or why the police are seeking
warrants, it is best to just go ahead and issue them since the police
have a better grasp of the situation. True, they probably do. But that
is entirely beside the point and is a complete abrogation (gotta look
that up one of these days) of their duty.
>
>>manner as someone who is exactly 20, it betrays the nature of
>>societal systems. For instance, do you think that it's okay for a
>>19+365 days person to buy alcohol or cigarettes in Japan?
>
>No.
>
>>Why not?
>
>It's illegal. But more important, people shouldn't smoke or drink.
Right. More important than enforcing some lame law is imposing Judge
Eric's personal moral code.
Michael Cash
>Brett Robson says...
>
>>I don't respond to analogies or hythopeticals.
>
>Maybe because you like to pretend crime is not your problem, or something that
>can happen to you. So you and others hide behind lame laws instead of how you'd
>like the law to act in a real situation such as crime happening to YOU. Yeah,
>I'm sure you will accept someone who killed your family walking free on a
>technicality such as, their lawyer talked; because that's the way the system is
>set up.
>
>>But you are focused on revenge.
>
>No, justice.
I am reminded of the story of a US Supreme Court Justice, wish I could
remember which one, who said to an attorney who when asked what he
wanted said "Justice", "Young man, this is a court of Law, not
Justice!"
Michael Cash
>Scott Reynolds says...
>
>>After all, it is not possible that the lawyer was lying. We all know
>>that lawyers are all fine upstanding individuals who would never, ever
>>tell an untruth.
>
>You pretend it is not possible the lawyer is telling the truth, that lawyers
>would not indeed feel they need to come forward with crucial evidence in a case.
In this particular case the issue of credibility is rather large, I
think. There's also a bit of a conundrum or a paradox or one of those
other big words whose meanings I don't know at work here.
1. The lawyer violated the law which establishes attorney-client
privilege. If he'll break that one, why should we believe he is above
committing perjury as well?
2. The lawyer is a former prosecutor, who took the information (the
accuracy/truthfulness of which can't be determined) and used it in
support of the prosecution in the case. Conflict of interest rears its
ugly head here. Might not the lawyer have some motive to perjure
himself in order to engender favor or repay old debts to former
coworkers?
Furthermore:
If this type of thing is allowed, it completely erodes the confidence
defendants can have in attorney-client privilege, destroying trust and
the chance of obtaining a fair trial.
In fact, attorney-client privilege in Japan is already something of a
myth if the lawyers who wrote "Saiban no Karakuri" are to be believed.
They indicate that many times what comes out of the defendant;s mouth
within minutes or hours finds its way into the ears of prosecutors and
judges.....it just happens behind the scenes and not on the witness
stand.
Of late I have been reading quite a few nonfiction works dealing with
the police, court, and prison systems of Japan. And let me assure you
it all adds up to a very very disturbing picture. Why the UN and
Amnesty International aren't up Japan's ass with a microscope over
human rights violations is beyond me. Get arrested in Japan and you're
fucked from the word go. The US Powers-That-Be's reluctance to turn
over the accused sergeant in the Okinawa rape case on grounds that
they are concerned over his rights is very understandable, in my
slightly informed opinion.
Michael Cash
>Ken Nicolson says...
>
>>And even with all these stringent qualifications, innocent people are
>>still being sentenced to death by "the American way".
>
>You are correct. Which is why I do not support that way, any more than I support
>killers walking free.
Let's see.....Eric disapproves of having a trial where testimony and
evidence are carefully weighed and considered before a verdict is
rendered....doesn't want people sentenced to death that way. Innocent
people get convicted. Instead, Eric wants police or citizens to commit
lynchings on the spot. Or maybe make it look like the suspect hung
himself with his bedsheet back at the stationhouse lockup.
God help the husband who comes home and is covered in blood from
finding his wife's murdered body, as someone else mentioned. Under
Eric's system the neighbors would be obliged to take him out and hang
him from the nearest telephone pole. Nope, no innocent folks could get
killed by doing things Eric's way.
Michael Cash
Interesting that you only reference statistics and information
provided by the Ministry of Justice. What? You expect them to tell on
themselves?
The Japanese system, in fact, DOES railroad people. No doubt the
majority of folks convicted are most likely guilty of the crimes. But
that doesn't mean that there aren't people who are railroaded by abuse
of the system, and by the existence of a system which pretty much
ensures the defendant won't get anything resembling a fair trial, from
the first moment he enters the police lockup.
Are you at all familiar with how the system works in Japan, Eric? You
display an amazing ignorance of the US system, about which you
presumably were exposed to some attempts at education. Have you taken
it upon yourself to learn any details of how the Japanese system
operates? I have. And as I have mentioned earlier in the thread, it is
highly fucking disturbing.
Michael Cash
>Ken Nicolson says...
>
>>If there is no evidence, if the victim and suspect's words are
>>irrelevant, how is "what actually happened" determined?
>
>The person is EITHER guilty (they did what they are accused of) or not. They are
>not "found" guilty or not guilty. This "determining" is precisely the problem.
>People are criminals guilty of crime whether or not they go to trial, and
>whether or not it gets reported.
>
Very true. Very true. No relevance whatsoever to real world
application of the criminal justice process, but very true
nonetheless.
Michael Cash
>marc says...
>
>>> More important Mike, is, did the man actually commit the crime he was
>>accused of?
>>
>>no, that is not more important. More important are the legal principals that
>>have to be observed to ensure that all defendents, not just this one, get a
>>fair trial. This includes a system that enforces lawyer-client
>>confidentiality.
>
>Lawyers who protect clients they know to be guilty or who withhold information
>regarding a crime allowing criminals to go free, should be punished as
>accessories or for obstructing justice, the same as if I rendered aid to
>criminals.
>
And I presume Ericworld holds similar fates for prosecutors at the end
of trials in which it was found that the defendant was in fact
innocent?
Boy, that oughta spice things up.
Michael Cash
never one to rest when there are lies to be told, said:
>
>so you take the 99% conviction rate and the standard practice of convicting
>based on prisoner confessions as an indication that the Japanese justice
>system functions? Seems to me that in this kind of system the judgement over
>guilt or innocence is bascially in the hands of the police and the
>prosecutors, not the courts.
Suggested reading:
Boku ga Deka o Yameta Wake
Keisatsusho no Uchimaku
Saiban no Karakuri
Shirarezaru Keimusho no Okite
Pakuraretara Dou Naru?
57nin no Shikeishuu
Shikei Shikkounin no Kunou
Soshite, Shikei ha Shikkou Sareta
Sad to say, in Japan you're pretty much fucked once you enter the
system. Doesn't matter if you're guilty or not.
Michael Cash
Takabayashi<et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> , never one to rest when there
are lies to be told, said:
>Michael Cash says...
>
>>Excuse my impertinence, but I think the family was beyond caring what
>>happened to their ice cream.
>
>Perhaps it makes no difference to you, but a killer who feels confident enough
>to hang around the scene of the crime and eat three containers of ice cream
>after killing an entire family, probably noisily and messily with a knife, who
>didn't even bother to wash their hands before opening the freezer and getting
>the ice cream, and who was so methodical as to lay out the clothes they left
>behind and laying in wait for the victims to return home, is no ordinary killer,
>not some simple punk who snapped because he didn't like the way some stranger
>looked at him in the street. This killer had prior intent. This killer was cold.
Leaving aside what appears prior to your first comma, I agree with
your assessment entirely.
>
>If the killer is caught and tried, such things could make the difference between
>charges or findings of injury causing death, manslaughter, murder with chance of
>parole, life without parole, and capital murder. It could make the difference
>between walking free (nah, they're under 20 and they're remorseful) or being
>executed.
>
A good assessment again.
Unfortunately, none of what you wrote expounds on how the family,
after having suffered the indignity of being brutally murdered in
their own home, would have had rage left over to feel indignant over
the killer scarfing down their ice cream.
mi...@redspark.org
> Scott Reynolds says...
>>> Other than the lawyer's word, who stated he was guilty?
>>
>>Eric.
> How do you know he is not guilty?
How do we know you're not guilty of murdering someone on, say, September 2,
1996? I mean, if your only metric is what can you PROVE yourself NOT guilty
of...
Mike
Michael Cash
, never one to rest when there are lies to be told, said:
>On Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:53:57 GMT, Eric
>Takabayashi<et...@fkym.enjoy.ne.jp> , never one to rest when there
>are lies to be told, said:
>
>>Michael Cash says...
>>
>>>Excuse my impertinence, but I think the family was beyond caring what
>>>happened to their ice cream.
>>
>>Perhaps it makes no difference to you, but a killer who feels confident enough
>>to hang around the scene of the crime and eat three containers of ice cream
>>after killing an entire family, probably noisily and messily with a knife, who
>>didn't even bother to wash their hands before opening the freezer and getting
>>the ice cream, and who was so methodical as to lay out the clothes they left
>>behind and laying in wait for the victims to return home, is no ordinary killer,
>>not some simple punk who snapped because he didn't like the way some stranger
>>looked at him in the street. This killer had prior intent. This killer was cold.
>
>Leaving aside what appears prior to your first comma, I agree with
>your assessment entirely.
Sorry, I also meant to disagree about the ice cream. I doubt that he
ate it noisily and messily with a knife.
Michael Cash
when there are lies to be told, said:
Right. Almost certainly there is an unsolved murder from that date.
And Eric should be hauled into court and forced to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that he did *not* commit the crime. Inability to
provide witnesses and documentation which absolutely prove his
innocence must mean he is guilty. And while we're at it, we just run
down the list of dates until we find one for which he can't prove
absolutely where he was and what he was doing, then we'll know he
committed whatever unsolved murders were done on that day.
Good way to clear up the backlog of unsolved cases, this applying of
Ericworld jurisinprudence is.