To use this site, please disable the ad blocking feature and reload the page.
This website uses cookies to collect information about your visit for purposes such as showing you personalized ads and content, and analyzing our website traffic. By clicking “Accept all,” you will allow the use of these cookies.
Users accessing this site from EEA countries and UK are unable to view this site without your consent. We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
Fifty-eight years after his arrest, the stigma of being a robber and murderer has finally been wiped away. The life that was lost cannot be recovered. The lessons of this case must be used to review the criminal justice system.
In the retrial of Iwao Hakamata, who had been on death row for the 1966 robbery and murder of four members of a family in Shizuoka Prefecture, a not-guilty ruling handed down by the Shizuoka District Court has been finalized as prosecutors gave up their appeals. This is the fifth case since the end of World War II of a defendant who had been sentenced to death having their acquittal finalized in a retrial.
About a year after the crime, items including a bloodstained shirt were found near the scene. The initial death sentence involved finding that the clothing had been worn by Hakamata at the time of the crime. In response, the retrial ruling found that the color of the bloodstains was unnatural, and that the investigative authorities had fabricated the clothing evidence.
In abandoning the appeal, prosecutors released an unusual statement from the prosecutor general. It rebutted the accusation of fabrication, calling it “totally unacceptable,” but it also stated, “We have come to the decision that it is not appropriate to continue to leave Hakamata in a situation of legal instability.”
The trial should not have been prolonged just so the investigative authorities could save face. There seems to have been opinions among prosecutors that an appeal should be made, but the decision not to appeal was only natural.
Hakamata was interrogated for 12 hours every day. Reportedly, he was not even allowed to go to the toilet and was forced to confess. Now that the finding of a false accusation has been finalized, police and prosecutors should examine the problems with the investigation up to this point and the reasons why the trial dragged on for so long.
The presiding judge who handed down the ruling in the retrial apologized in court, saying, “I’m sorry it took so long.” Couldn’t the proceedings, which took over 40 years just for the retrial, have been more quickly completed? The court also needs to examine how the case progressed.
Under the current retrial system, there is no obligation for prosecutors to disclose evidence to the defense. For this reason, there are cases in which the prosecutors do not disclose important evidence that could lead to accusations being proven false.
Even if the court decides to grant a retrial, the prosecutors can appeal that decision, so it takes quite some time before the retrial begins. If the retrial decision is made and the retrial starts immediately, the overall trial period is bound to be shortened.
People make mistakes. The retrial system exists on this premise to help victims of false accusations. With the progress of science, there are also more and more cases in which errors in past investigations and evidence are exposed. It can be said that improving the rules for retrials is urgent.
Hakamata was detained for nearly half a century and spent his days in fear of being executed. This tragedy of being at the mercy of the judicial system must not be repeated.
