Editorial
Case of man freed after 17 years in prison highlights merits, dangers of DNA testing
Toshikazu Sugaya, who was sentenced to life imprisonment after DNA tests led to his conviction over the 1990 murder of a 4-year-old girl in Ashikaga, Tochigi Prefecture, looks likely to be cleared of the crime following a new set of DNA tests.
Furthermore, the Tokyo High Public Prosecutors Office decided to suspend the execution of Sugaya's life sentence, and took the rare step of releasing him without waiting for a retrial; an appropriate decision, after the new tests showed that Sugaya's DNA did not match that of the criminal. However, considering that there was a chance to clear Sugaya before his sentence was fixed, it's lamentable that he spent 17 years behind bars. Investigative authorities and court officials must seriously reflect on this grave situation. Needless to say, Sugaya's retrial should be held quickly.
Sugaya's case received wide attention at the time, since DNA testing, which had just been introduced at the time, was a deciding factor in his arrest. It was also the first case in which the Supreme Court accepted the value of DNA as evidence. However, there were also glaring errors in the basic investigation. Autopsy findings on the cause of death conflicted with Sugaya's confession, and despite giving testimony on two other child murders, charges against him were shelved by public prosecutors. While suspicions should have arisen that Sugaya's confession had been forced, police, public prosecutors and courts all overlooked the fact.
In cases involving false accusations, it's common for a suspect to be singled out in an investigation with a presumed outcome, and for them to be pressured into making a confession. Once a confession is secured, investigators conclude, "They wouldn't confess to it if they weren't the perpetrator," thereby entangling the investigation in a web of their own making.
In Sugaya's case, investigative authorities and branches of the judiciary caused damage by attaching too much importance to the confession. In addition, while it was known that the accuracy of DNA testing at the time was low, they focused on the results of the test, using that as leverage to extract a confession.
DNA testing carries no guarantee. Officials must realize that even if a negative result becomes proof for a not guilty verdict, a match is not necessarily proof of guilt. Even now, while technology has improved and accuracy has increased dramatically, the results of DNA tests must not be overstated. DNA has saved many death row inmates in the United States, but while it has become possible to conduct tests using very small samples, critics have pointed out the danger of another person's DNA getting mixed up in the sample, resulting in false accusations.
Many guilty rulings have been handed down based on the same DNA testing methods that were employed in the Ashikaga case, and some inmates' death sentences have already been carried out. There is a need to quickly verify DNA test results and review evidence.
We cannot forget that lawyers had pointed out differences in DNA test results based on testing of Sugaya's hair during his Supreme Court appeal. If the court had raised doubts about the initial DNA test result and immediately conducted another DNA test, Sugaya could have been released sooner. The fact that the statute of limitations for murder expired during the period Sugaya was incarcerated, ending the possibility of apprehending the perpetrator, cannot be overlooked.
Learning a lesson from the enormity of a misjudgment that has been so vividly conveyed to us soon after the launch of Japan's citizen judge system is the least we can do. We must come to grips with the difficulty of judging other people, and strive to cultivate fair judgment in trials.
(Mainichi Japan) June 5, 2009