EDITORIAL: Prosecution reform

A U.S. Supreme Court Justice once said that a prosecutor's duty is not to win a case, but to do justice.

Three months have passed since a prosecutor at the Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office was found to have tampered with evidence to convict a suspect. On Friday, the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office released a report on its investigation into the scandal.

The report withheld some of the details of what happened, partly because the former chief and deputy chief of the special investigation unit at the Osaka office have denied trying to cover up their subordinate's evidence tampering. Their trials have yet to begin.

Nevertheless, the investigation does offer a chilling glimpse of a prosecutor setting aside his profession's most sacred duty, which is to get to the truth, and putting higher priority on his superiors' evaluation of his performance, his relations with colleagues and his reputation within his organization.

This case cannot be blamed on the prosecutor's personal qualities and abilities. It must be viewed as a manifestation of ills within the organization's traditions and culture.

However, the report includes some defensive language that raises questions about how well the prosecution authorities understand the nature of the scandal in which they are embroiled.

To prevent a recurrence, the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office promises to strengthen oversight over cases handled by special units and to introduce partial video-recording of interrogations. We have no objection to the former, but the prosecution authorities are grossly mistaken if they think the proposed partial video-recording of interrogations, which could be implemented in a way convenient for prosecutors, will restore public trust in their profession.

An independent panel set up by the Justice Ministry will use the findings of the probe in discussing the future of the prosecution system. We hope that the panel will come up with recommendations that directly address the core issues, such as the way prosecutors' job performances are evaluated and the ethical standards prosecutors are expected to abide by, as well as whether the special investigation units should exist.

The introduction of the new lay judge system has brought Japan's criminal justice system to a major turning point. Prosecution authorities now need to outgrow the legacy of their past success and adjust their ways of operating to the new times. It is time for them to start studying investigative techniques in other countries, including plea bargaining, which can give prosecutors access to important information about a crime by reducing the charges against a defendant.

How to uncover the truth in criminal investigations while ensuring that human rights are respected is an important issue that demands broad public debate.

Prosecutor-General Hiroshi Obayashi has announced his resignation to coincide with the release of the report. We applaud him for his decision. A self-righteous culture among prosecutors was at least partially to blame for the failures of top prosecutors in the past to take responsibility for serious violations, such as violence against suspects, within their organizations.

The prosecution system needs public trust. Since the evidence tampering scandal came to light, there have been signs of a change in attitudes to prosecutors, such as a refusal by suspects to answer their questions. Many prosecutors must be acutely conscious of that swing in public sentiment.

The latest scandal has made it clear that past efforts to investigate and reform the prosecution system have not brought about real change. Prosecutors must now make a serious effort to ensure compliance with the basic rules of their profession. Haruo Kasama, who is to succeed Obayashi, should spearhead those efforts.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Dec. 25