EDITORIAL: Forcing confessions

We are appalled by the profane outbursts recorded during police questioning. An officer of the Osaka Prefectural Police Department was recorded hurling verbal abuse at a man, uttering such statements as: "Hey, don't monkey around with me. I'm going to hit you," and "I'll destroy your life."

The man asked the special investigative unit of the Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office to charge the officer, accusing him of using violent methods to force a confession.

Instead of holding a trial, prosecutors filed a summary indictment, calling for a fine against the officer. But the Osaka Summary Court decided to hold a formal trial, saying a summary indictment is not appropriate in this case.

The charges sought by the man against the officer stipulate much harsher punishment than just a fine. But the summary indictment brought by the prosecutors accused the officer of assault, under which fines as a penalty can be applied.

Was the prosecution trying to avoid a trial to conceal investigative methods that force suspects to confess behind closed doors? An attorney representing the man raised this question.

The court also found the prosecution's attempt to protect one of its own unacceptable. While it is quite unusual for a summary court to reject a request for a summary order by the prosecution, we welcome the decision as reasonable.

Trials under the citizen judge system have taken root. At the same time, irregularities by prosecutors continue to surface.

Courts have traditionally tended to accept the decisions of prosecutors. But as the latest case shows, judges' awareness appears to be changing under these circumstances.

The prosecution should now do everything it can to prove the officer's crime in court. It must not slack off.

The police officer asked the man to voluntarily come to the police station for questioning about the theft of a wallet dropped by a woman. The man did not know the woman.

In the police car, the officer told him, "I know you are the culprit," and did not notify him of his right to remain silent.

In the police interrogation room, the officer shouted at the man, "If you think I won't use force, you're mistaken," and kicked a folding chair.

With the absence of any objective evidence, the officer forced the man to confess under duress. This is the very pattern that leads to false convictions.

The lessons of the Himi incident in Toyama Prefecture, in which the real perpetrator was later found, and the Ashikaga incident in Tochigi Prefecture, in which a wrongly accused man was acquitted in a retrial after spending a long time in prison, have not taken root.

The highhanded interrogation methods in Osaka were brought to light because the man was carrying a recorder. Otherwise, it would have been difficult to prove his accusations.

To prevent false confessions, the entire interrogation process should be subject to audio and video recordings.

However, video recording being studied now only applies to interrogations after arrests are made. Why not consider a system to allow video recording during voluntary questioning if requested?

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, citizens can refuse officers' requests for voluntary questioning and are allowed to go home even in the middle of the interrogation. But in reality, it is not easy to refuse the requests of investigators.

Highhanded methods start from the voluntary questioning stage. Investigators must properly inform people they question of their rights. This is a rule that must be thoroughly implemented even during voluntary questioning.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Dec. 30