The important thing is to solve criminal cases steadily while preventing false accusations by conducting interrogations properly.
With the enforcement of the revised Criminal Procedure Code, it has become mandatory since June 1 to make audiovisual recordings of interrogations. Audiovisual recordings are mandatory in cases subject to lay judge trials and those investigated independently by prosecutors, and the entire process of interrogations is to be recorded while suspects are under arrest and detained.
Following the exposure in 2010 of an incident in which evidence in a criminal case was tampered with by a special squad at the Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office, discussions on reforming the criminal justice system have advanced, leading to the introduction of various systems. The latest move of making audiovisual recordings of interrogations mandatory can be considered an overall finish to the series of reforms.
Although a number of experiments have been conducted so far, there were several cases in which police failed to make audiovisual recordings of interrogations, due mainly to officers forgetting to push the record button or misunderstandings on the part of investigators. As such mistakes could affect the substantiation of statements in court, it is essential for the recordings to be made thoroughly, without omissions.
Audiovisual recording of interrogations is expected to make closed-door interrogations more transparent and prevent suspects from being forced or induced to confess. Video footage of interrogations will also serve as evidence in court to judge how voluntary and credible the confessions given by defendants during interrogations are.
Yet there are also arguments over how the video footage should be utilized in court.
Protect investigative ability
In the murder of a little girl that occurred in Tochigi Prefecture, the lay judge trial at the court of first instance found the accused guilty, attaching importance to video footage that recorded the defendant making a confession. But the court of second instance raised doubts, saying, "The judgment may have been made from intuition, based on the impression made on the judges."
The court should explore ways to appropriately use video footage as evidence, while taking heed of the possible impact the video footage could have. Meanwhile, prosecutors need to establish the facts with evidence that is as objective as possible, without depending on suspects' confessions.
The number of cases in which interrogations are now subject to mandatory audiovisual recording accounts for only several percent of arrests and detentions, which exceed 100,000 in all. Questioning prior to arrest or after indictment is not included. The issue of whether the range of cases subject to mandatory recording is appropriate will continue to be examined.
On the other hand, it is also important for investigative abilities not to decline. There were strong concerns among investigative authorities over the introduction of audiovisual recording of interrogations, including that it would become impossible to obtain confessions from a suspect. One of the systems introduced, together with mandatory recording, to make it easier to collect evidence is the expansion of authorized wiretapping of telephones and others.
Organized fraud and theft were added as types of crime subject to wiretapping. From this month onward, investigators can make more flexible application of wiretaps.
In the past, when a crime suspect was wiretapped, it was necessary for it to be done within the facilities of a telecommunications business operator. Now it is no longer necessary for a telecom carrier representative to be present at the time of wiretapping, with investigators able to conduct the operation within police facilities.
Using these methods will be effective in protecting people's safe lives. Investigative authorities should refrain from abusing these methods and employ them stringently.
(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, June 3, 2019)
Read more from The Japan News at https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/
