Does Japan use an adversarial system of law or an inquisitorial system of law? -

The US uses an adversarial system, but what does Japan use? Also, is Japan more on the quot;innocent until proven guiltyquot; side, or the quot;guilty until proven innocentquot; side? It could be that the law states one thing and the opposite is routinely practiced regarding this, so please mention that, if applicable.

A bit of both. At trial, it s adversarial, in that the defendant has the right to counsel, and both sides get to argue their case to the panel of judges (There is no jury in Japanese law). Before trial, however, it s an inquisitorial system. After an arrest, the police can hold a defendant for up to 23 days with no access to counsel, no rights against self incrimination, and no limits on the length of time he can be interrogated. As a result, over 99% of Japanese criminal trials end in a conviction, based on confessions obtained prior to speaking to a defense lawyer. Additionally, while there is quot;in theoryquot; a presumption of innocence, virtually ALL judges are former prosecuting attorneys, and the testimony of police officers is simply assumed to be true regardless of any other evidence. Japanese defense lawyers can even be jailed for defaming the police for claiming in court that a police officer has lied in his testimony. Richard

In court it s supposedly quot;adversarial.quot; But you got the defense counsel, prosecutor, and the judge asking you questions, so in actuality, its inquisitorial. Supposedly, it s innocent until proven guilty, but again, in actual practice, it s the opposite. As far as hierarchy, the judge is supposed to be at the top, but in actual criminal practice, the prosecutor is the one who leads the case. It has something to do with the Prosecutor being under the Administration dept. Most bureaucrats are former prosecutors and they all have a sense of quot;brotherhoodquot; and since judge s careers are decided through admin......the power play is obvious. It is rare to get an acquittal for criminal cases once a person is indicted. The court system is there more for the sake of reviewing and affirming what the prosecutor has instead of actually finding the truth despite the Japan s idea of bringing out the truth in the process. Laws can be revised but not practiced for a long time. Some laws have never been put to the test. Japan is going to start a jury system around 2010, but there s alot of things they need to consider before this system can run smoothly. Regular Japanese people don t have much dealings with the police on a regular basis and going to court is seen as something negative. Also, basic knowledge about law and rights is surprisingly low.

gt; It could be that the law states one thing and the opposite is routinely practiced regarding this, so please mention that, if applicable. There are broad discrepancies between the letter of the law. mostly imposed by the US Occupation, and the actual implementation of it, which takes into account Japanese social customs, mores, and traditions. The shortest description I can give for why that is, is that Japan is a very quot;high contextquot; society, and our laws derive from a very quot;low contextquot; social tradition. This is way too complex a topic to go into here though....search amazon for books about Japanese law social structure and you might find some good ones - look especially to Japanese publishers such as Tuttle and Kodansha.