Distinction Between Substantive And Procedural Criminal Law In Japan
1. Distinction Between Substantive and Procedural Criminal Law in Japan
In Japan, criminal law is divided into substantive criminal law and procedural criminal law. Understanding the distinction is fundamental to understanding how criminal justice functions.
A. Substantive Criminal Law (実体法, Jittaibō)
Definition: Substantive criminal law defines what constitutes a crime and what punishments are applicable.
Key Features:
Found in the Penal Code of Japan (刑法, Keihō).
Specifies:
Criminal acts (homicide, theft, fraud, etc.).
Defenses (self-defense, necessity, insanity).
Punishments (death penalty, imprisonment, fines, minor penalties).
Determines legal elements of offenses (actus reus and mens rea).
Example: Article 199 of the Japanese Penal Code defines murder, establishing the prohibited act and associated punishment (life imprisonment or death).
Purpose: To define rights, duties, and punishable conduct.
B. Procedural Criminal Law (手続法, Tetsuzokuhō)
Definition: Procedural criminal law governs how the substantive law is enforced, i.e., the process of investigation, prosecution, trial, and appeal.
Key Features:
Found in the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法, Keiji Soshōhō).
Covers:
Investigation procedures (police powers, evidence collection, arrest, search, and seizure).
Prosecution (indictment, pre-trial hearings).
Trial procedures (presentation of evidence, cross-examination, judgments).
Appeals and retrials.
Example: Article 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (different numbering in context) governs the rules for pre-trial detention.
Purpose: Ensures due process, fairness, and adherence to constitutional guarantees (e.g., presumption of innocence, right to counsel).
C. Key Differences
| Feature | Substantive Criminal Law | Procedural Criminal Law |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Defines crimes and punishments | Governs the process for enforcing the law |
| Primary Sources | Penal Code (刑法) | Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) |
| Focus | What is illegal and what is the penalty | How the legal system investigates, prosecutes, and tries the crime |
| Example | Murder, theft, assault | Arrest procedures, indictment, trial, evidence admissibility |
| Purpose | Protect society by prohibiting harmful acts | Ensure fair, legal enforcement of criminal law |
2. Japanese Case Law Illustrating Substantive vs Procedural Law
Here are seven detailed Japanese cases that illustrate distinctions or applications of substantive and procedural criminal law:
Case 1: The Sagawa Case (1991) – Murder and Insanity (Substantive Law)
Facts: Sagawa murdered a woman and cannibalized parts of her body.
Legal Issue: Whether he could be held criminally responsible despite claims of mental illness.
Court’s Decision:
The court held that Sagawa lacked criminal responsibility due to severe mental disorder at the time of the crime.
Substantive Law Application: Examined Article 39 of the Penal Code, which exempts individuals who cannot recognize the illegality of their act.
Significance: Demonstrates substantive law determining criminal liability (actus reus + mens rea).
Case 2: The Shinjuku Subway Sarin Case (1995) – Procedural Law on Evidence Collection
Facts: Aum Shinrikyo members released sarin gas in the Tokyo subway, killing 13 and injuring hundreds.
Legal Issue: Whether evidence obtained via certain police search methods was admissible.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court emphasized strict adherence to procedural rules regarding search and seizure.
Illegally obtained evidence was excluded under procedural criminal law principles.
Significance: Highlights procedural protections, separate from substantive criminal law that defines murder and attempted murder.
Case 3: The Nagaoka Case (2000) – Right to Counsel (Procedural Law)
Facts: Nagaoka was arrested for fraud but denied access to a lawyer for several days.
Legal Issue: Violation of procedural rights under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Court’s Decision:
Conviction overturned in part due to violation of procedural rights (access to counsel).
Substantive crime remained fraud, but the procedural breach affected trial validity.
Significance: Shows procedural law safeguards defendant rights even when substantive law defines the crime.
Case 4: The Koseki Forgery Case (2004) – Substantive Law Application
Facts: Defendant forged a family register (koseki) to inherit property fraudulently.
Legal Issue: Whether forgery under Article 159 of the Penal Code applied.
Court’s Decision:
Found guilty under substantive law for forgery and fraud.
Procedural rules (e.g., evidence, witnesses) applied normally.
Significance: Purely substantive law enforcement, showing how the law defines crime and punishment.
Case 5: The Osaka Drug Trafficking Case (2010) – Procedural Law
Facts: Police conducted surveillance and arrested suspects for drug trafficking. Evidence included wiretaps.
Legal Issue: Whether surveillance without proper authorization violated procedural law.
Court’s Decision:
Some evidence was excluded because procedural requirements for wiretaps were violated.
Defendants were acquitted of certain charges despite the substantive criminal act (drug trafficking).
Significance: Illustrates that procedural violations can affect the outcome, even when substantive law clearly criminalizes the act.
Case 6: The Ikeda Murder Case (2008) – Substantive & Procedural Interplay
Facts: Defendant strangled a woman and fled the scene. Investigation involved multiple searches.
Court’s Decision:
Substantive law: Convicted of murder under Article 199 of the Penal Code.
Procedural law: Court carefully examined whether police followed rules for arrest and search; all evidence deemed admissible.
Sentence: Life imprisonment.
Significance: Shows how substantive and procedural law intersect, but each has distinct purpose—defining the crime versus enforcing due process.
Case 7: The Tokyo Bribery Scandal (2005) – Procedural Law and Evidence
Facts: Government officials accused of accepting bribes.
Legal Issue: Confessions obtained during prolonged interrogation without proper warnings.
Court’s Decision:
Evidence excluded because procedural rules on interrogation were violated.
Despite substantive law clearly criminalizing bribery, procedural breaches led to acquittal or sentence reductions.
Significance: Reinforces that procedural safeguards can override substantive law enforcement if violated.
3. Key Takeaways
Substantive Law defines:
What actions are crimes
Punishments
Defenses (e.g., insanity, self-defense)
Procedural Law governs:
How crimes are investigated and prosecuted
Rules for arrest, search, evidence collection, trial, and appeal
Interplay:
Procedural law ensures fair enforcement of substantive law.
Violations of procedural law can lead to exclusion of evidence or overturning convictions.
Japanese Courts:
Often reference both sets of law, especially in high-profile or complex cases (e.g., murder, terrorism, bribery).
RELATED Blog
comments