Making Interrogations Transparent: Can Coerced Confessions behind Closed Doors Be Prevented?

Editorial

15:04 JST, February 27, 2025

During interrogations of suspects and others by prosecutors, there have been a spate of problems such as them being unjustly coaxed into making statements. Improper investigations must be prevented by expanding the use of audiovisual recordings in interrogations.

Naomi Unemoto, prosecutor general of the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office, has announced that the voluntary questioning of people who have not been arrested will also be subject to audiovisual recordings.

Currently, audiovisual recordings are legally mandatory for interrogations of suspects arrested in cases subject to lay judge trials and those investigated independently by prosecutors.

In addition to this, prosecutors have voluntarily implemented audiovisual recordings of interrogations of those arrested in more than 90% of all cases to ensure that investigations are conducted properly. Nevertheless, there has been no end to improper investigations in recent years.

In the large-scale vote-buying incident in the 2019 House of Councillors election, it was discovered that prosecutors of the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office’s special investigation squad improperly induced a then local city assembly member to provide statements in line with the assumptions of the investigation. In another incident, a defendant claimed that they were threatened with a mandatory investigation if they did not admit to the crime.

These incidents occurred during voluntary questioning conducted without audiovisual recordings. In order to prevent similar incidents, it is quite natural to expand the use of audiovisual recordings to include voluntary questioning.

When Unemoto announced the expansion of the scope of audiovisual recordings, she said in front of other senior prosecutors from across the country, “We should be deeply concerned about the various criticisms we are receiving regarding the nature of our interrogations.”

It can be said that this is a sign of her sense of urgency over the continuing scandals involving investigations by prosecutors. In order to restore trust, the prosecution should be aware that it is entering a critical phase.

With increased transparency, it will be possible to confirm the validity of interrogations during the course of trials and other proceedings. The prosecution side will also benefit if the number of disputes with the defense side over the voluntariness of statements and other issues is reduced.

It is a problem that some prosecutors, who should know that their interrogations are being recorded, employ a method of using abusive language seemingly to coerce suspects into making confessions.

In one case, a prosecutor called a lawyer who was arrested and kept silent “a childish person” and said, “You’re a kid, aren’t you?” In a civil trial over the case, the interrogation was acknowledged to have been illegal and had violated the lawyer’s personal rights. The central government lost the suit and was ordered to pay compensation.

The fact that there is a prosecutor who made such comments, even in a situation where the interrogation was being recorded on camera, shows a lack of awareness of the issue. There may be a culture within the prosecution that tolerates prosecutors obtaining confessions by undermining the character of the other party.

The coercion of confessions has also been a problem for the police. Is it sufficient for prosecutors alone to broaden the scope of audiovisual recordings? The police are also required to give due consideration to this issue.

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Feb. 27, 2025)