DEBITO.ORG
Arudou Debito/Dave Aldwinckle's Home Page

New ebooks by ARUDOU Debito

  • Book IN APPROPRIATE: A novel of culture, kidnapping, and revenge in modern Japan
  • Debito.org Podcast Dec 8, 2007

    Posted by Dr. ARUDOU, Debito on December 13th, 2007

    Hi Blog. I haven’t announced this very clearly (partially since I’m still getting used to the technology), but I’ve been doing about one podcast a week for the past two months. My latest:

    ===============================
    Debito.org Podcast for December 8, 2007

    1) ”JINKEN SHUUKAN”: DEC 4-10 HUMAN RIGHTS WEEK IN JAPAN–WHAT THE OFFICIAL GOALS ARE FOR THIS GOJ-SPONSORED EVENT, AND HOW THEY’RE FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED.

    2) RACIAL PROFILING AT TOYOKO INN HIROSAKI, PART AND PARCEL OF TOYOKO INN’S NASTINESS TOWARDS NON-JAPANESE AND WHEELCHAIR CUSTOMERS. SUGGEST A BOYCOTT.

    Plus Duran Duran at beginning and end (and Tangerine Dream between topics)…

    Twenty minutes. Have a listen.
    ===============================

    Or from Trans Pacific Radio
    http://www.transpacificradio.com/2007/12/11/debitoorg-newsletter-for-december-10-2007/

    Previous podcasts from Debito.org archived at Trans Pacific Radio under
    http://www.transpacificradio.com/category/debito/

    Enjoy! I’ll have another one out next week. Arudou Debito in Sapporo

    One Response to “Debito.org Podcast Dec 8, 2007”

    1. HO Says:

      Following is a very serious discrimination against a foreign national, which you might be interested in making an issue.
      “Supreme Court rules against a Swiss woman (28), who was incarcerated by an appellate court after being found ‘not guilty’ by the district court.”

      http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/s/article/2007121401000621.html

      【社会】

      無罪外国人の拘置確定 最高裁が特別抗告棄却
      東京新聞 2007年12月14日 19時38分
       覚せい剤取締法違反(密輸)事件の1審で無罪判決を受けたのに再度拘置されたのは違法として、スイス国籍の女性(28)が訴えていた特別抗告審で、最高裁第3小法廷は14日までに、拘置を認めた東京高裁決定を妥当とする決定をした。
       那須弘平裁判長は、同様に1審無罪の外国人男性の拘置を認めた2000年の最高裁決定を引用する一方で「無罪判決後に拘置する際は、その判決を十分に踏まえて慎重に判断されねばならず、1審段階より強い嫌疑が必要」との判断基準を初めて示した。
       その上で「犯罪を疑うに足りる相当な理由があるとして拘置を認めた高裁決定は是認できる」と指摘。決定取り消しを求めた女性の特別抗告を棄却した。裁判官5人全員一致の意見で13日付。
      (共同)

      If she were a Japanese citizen, the high court would never re-issue detention warrant for her.

      (It is OK in Japan for prosecutors to file an appeal to ‘not guilty’ judgment by a district court. The allegation against the woman was importing illegal drugs. Punishment is minimum 1 year maximum 20 years in prison.)

      Code of Criminal Procedure
      Article 345
      Detention warrant loses its power when judgment of ‘not guilty’ is notified.

      Article 60
      (1) The court may detain the accused when there is probable cause to suspect that he/she has committed a crime and when:
      (i) The accused has no fixed residence;
      (ii) There is probable cause to suspect that he/she may conceal or destroy evidence;
      (iii) The accused has fled or there is probable cause to suspect that he/she may flee.
      (2) The period of detention shall be two months from the date of institution of prosecution. In cases where it is especially necessary to continue the detention, the period may, by a ruling with a specific reason, be extended for additional one-month periods. However, the extension shall only be allowed once, except as otherwise prescribed in Item (i), (iii), (iv) or (vi) of Article 89.

      Article 89
      The request for bail shall be granted, except when:
      (i) The accused has allegedly committed a crime which is punishable by the death penalty, life imprisonment with or without work or a sentence of imprisonment with or without work whose minimum term of imprisonment is one year or more;
      (ii) The accused was previously found guilty of a crime punishable by the death penalty, life imprisonment with or without work or a sentence of imprisonment with or without work whose maximum term of imprisonment was in excess of ten years;
      (iii) The accused allegedly habitually committed a crime punishable by imprisonment with or without work whose maximum term of imprisonment was in excess of three years;
      (iv) There is probable cause to suspect that the accused may conceal or destroy evidence;
      (v) There is probable cause to suspect that the accused may harm or threaten the body or property of the victim or any other person who is deemed to have essential knowledge for the trial of the case or the relatives of such persons;
      (vi) The name or residence of the accused is unknown.

      –THANKS FOR THIS. DEBITO

    Leave a Reply