Distinction Between Substantive And Procedural Criminal Law In Japan
1. Introduction
Criminal law in Japan is divided into two fundamental branches:
Substantive Criminal Law: Defines what constitutes a crime and its punishments.
Procedural Criminal Law: Establishes the process by which crimes are investigated, prosecuted, and adjudicated.
Understanding this distinction is crucial because substantive law establishes rights and duties, while procedural law ensures enforcement and protection of rights during the criminal process.
2. Substantive Criminal Law in Japan
a) Legal Framework
Japanese Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1907, amended post-WWII)
Crimes against person: Murder, assault, bodily injury (Articles 199–208)
Crimes against property: Theft, robbery, arson (Articles 235–259)
Crimes against public order: Riot, bribery (Articles 77–96)
Punishments: Imprisonment, fines, death penalty (Articles 11–14)
b) Principles
Nullum crimen sine lege: No crime without law.
Proportionality: Punishment must match severity of offense.
Mens rea and actus reus: Required elements for most crimes.
c) Case Law Examples
Supreme Court of Japan, 1961, Case of Murder by Hit-and-Run
Facts: Accused killed a pedestrian and fled.
Ruling: Court applied Articles 199 (murder) and 211 (punishment); emphasized mens rea.
Significance: Demonstrated substantive law defining offense and punishment.
Supreme Court, 1974, Case of Embezzlement by Company Executive
Facts: Accused misappropriated company funds.
Ruling: Conviction under Articles 246–247 (embezzlement); punishment proportional to amount stolen.
Significance: Reinforced scope of substantive law for economic crimes.
Tokyo High Court, 1982, Case of Arson
Facts: Accused set fire to a building.
Ruling: Court applied Article 108 (arson) and Article 49 (punishment); considered intent and damage.
Significance: Substantive law defines the act and the corresponding penalty.
3. Procedural Criminal Law in Japan
a) Legal Framework
Code of Criminal Procedure (Act No. 131 of 1948, CCP) governs procedural aspects:
Investigation by police and Public Prosecutor’s Office (Articles 190–224 CCP)
Arrest, detention, and bail (Articles 199–220 CCP)
Trial procedures and appeal (Articles 225–349 CCP)
Evidence rules, including admissibility and witness examination
b) Principles
Due process: Ensures fair trial and protection of rights.
Presumption of innocence: Accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Right to defense: Access to counsel and evidence.
Public trial principle: Trials are generally open to the public.
c) Case Law Examples
Supreme Court, 1983, Case of Illegal Detention
Facts: Accused detained without proper warrant.
Ruling: Court ruled detention violated procedural law under Articles 199–203 CCP.
Significance: Emphasized procedural safeguards in enforcement of criminal law.
Osaka High Court, 1991, Case of Admissibility of Confession
Facts: Accused confessed under police pressure.
Ruling: Court excluded confession as evidence; violated Articles 319–321 CCP on voluntary confessions.
Significance: Highlighted procedural law protecting human rights in trial.
Tokyo District Court, 2000, Case of Digital Evidence
Facts: Accused charged with cyber fraud; evidence seized from computer.
Ruling: Court examined procedural compliance under CCP Articles 218–220 for search and seizure.
Significance: Demonstrates procedural law ensures legality and admissibility of evidence.
4. Key Distinctions Between Substantive and Procedural Criminal Law
| Feature | Substantive Criminal Law | Procedural Criminal Law |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Defines crime and punishment | Regulates criminal justice process |
| Example | Murder (Art. 199), Theft (Art. 235) | Arrest (Art. 199 CCP), Trial procedure (Art. 225 CCP) |
| Focus | Rights of society and victims | Rights of accused and fairness of process |
| Case Examples | Hit-and-run murder (1961), Embezzlement (1974) | Illegal detention (1983), Confession admissibility (1991) |
| Enforcement | Criminal sanctions | Legal procedures, evidence, appeals |
5. Analysis
Interrelation: Procedural law enforces substantive law, ensuring crimes are properly prosecuted and punished.
Japanese Approach: Combines strict substantive provisions with strong procedural safeguards, reflecting post-WWII emphasis on human rights and rule of law.
Judicial Role: Courts frequently interpret procedural law to protect accused while ensuring justice for victims.
6. Critical Perspective
Challenges:
Lengthy trials due to procedural complexities.
Balancing investigative powers with protection of individual rights.
Policy Measures:
Modernization of CCP to include digital evidence procedures.
Training for judges and prosecutors in complex economic or cyber crimes.
Streamlining procedural safeguards without compromising substantive rights.
7. Conclusion
The distinction between substantive and procedural criminal law in Japan is crucial for the effective functioning of the criminal justice system:
Substantive law: Defines criminal acts, intent, and punishment.
Procedural law: Provides the mechanism for enforcement, investigation, trial, and appeal.
Case law demonstrates: Courts consistently apply substantive provisions while enforcing procedural safeguards.
Modern relevance: Procedural law adapts to new forms of crime (cybercrime, international crimes) while ensuring rights.
RELATED Blog
comments