Diary 2024-12-24
An example of how a signature site can be a source of falsehoods.
ura_account55 The rumor that the judge rated a woman's "rejection" of "no", "suffering", and "please stop" as "obscene remarks", where did the fire come from? I was trying to find out where it originated from, but apparently, it is mentioned in the early version of the online signature. Moreover, in the current version, this description has been secretly rewritten. https://gyazo.com/4b8182957dcc606396b7b2a7ab9572a7
The text on the signature site is, after all, written by an individual and may contain unintentional errors
A fact check on this is needed, but it seems that it can actually be fixed silently.
I'm not sure how I feel about calling a service with such specifications an "online signature site".
nishio I think it is dishonest service provision for a site that can rewrite the text of the signed subject after it is signed to call itself an "online signature site", making the change history visible, It would be good to have a function to visualize the change history, clarify which version each person signed, and notify the person who signed the old version of the document of the difference and encourage them to re-sign the latest version. igu6dx At any rate... there isn't a woman in the world who wouldn't be pissed off by that ruling. This is the basic premise.
I've heard that even civil lawyers require their clients to be honest about everything.
I'm sure it would have been even more so if you were a judge in a criminal case.
There isn't a woman in the world who wouldn't be outraged by that ruling."
I honestly don't know if this acquittal is strange to me... If I were a judge, I might make the same decision.
The stance is, "We have not seen the detailed evidence, so we can't judge."
As an expert, I think you're right.
Just like a scientist can't say it won't happen.
sato__michiko I'm late to the party, but I think it is dangerous to sign a petition to prosecute the judge who issued the Osaka High Court decision to the Judges' Appeal Board, that is, to take away his position as a judge. I think it is dangerous to sign a petition to prosecute the judge who issued the Osaka High Court decision to the Judges' Appeals Board. The case of the Shiga Medical University student was arrested and prosecuted under the pre-revision crime of forcible sexual intercourse, etc., not under the current law of non-consensual sexual intercourse, etc. Unlike the current crime of non-consensual sexual intercourse, the crime of "forcible sexual intercourse" does not ask whether the victim consented or not, but whether there was "a threat of assault to the extent that would make it extremely difficult for the victim to commit the crime," which was originally a requirement for the crime.
We should not forget that the law was amended because if we strictly apply the preamendment forced sexual intercourse, etc., it is possible to be acquitted in this way even in cases without consent in some cases.
So I honestly don't know if this acquittal is wrong for me. Of course, it is quite possible that there are problems with the decision, but I can't judge that there always are (I haven't found the text of the decision in the first place). In extreme cases, if I were a judge, I might make the same decision.
Isn't it extremely dangerous to appeal a decision on an individual case based on the law and evidence > to the Judges' Appeals Board just because it is unfair based on the news reports, i.e., to even try to disqualify a person from the legal profession? Is it really justice to convict and throw in jail those who would be acquitted if the law were applied just because society cries out for it? Isn't that extremely dangerous?
I think you can see from the recent case of Northeastern University that even if the defendant is acquitted, this case is a tort in a civil sense, and the medical school is liable for damages and may be able to dispose of the case on that basis.
I would urge everyone to be cautious about signing petitions or campaigning for prosecution by the Judges' Appeals Board based on a single ruling on an individual case. To begin with, the judge is a collegium of three judges, including a woman.
yomimate As a general rule, it is the left jury that drafts the judgment in a collegial court body, not the presiding judge (the presiding judge is the final check on what has been drafted). As long as the left jury is in charge of drafting the judgment, it is also the left jury that reviews the record most carefully. So I was wondering why only the presiding judge, and not the female judge on the left jury who supposedly drafted the judgment, was the target of the attack, but now I have an answer. The first report about the verdict will be a report of the presiding judge delivering (reading out) the verdict in the courtroom, so the entire text of the report will be in the style of "The presiding judge noted that xxx." The first report on the verdict is the one in which the presiding judge is handing down (reading out) the verdict. Because of this, people take it as, "This judge made such a decision! The judge made such a decision!
I am not sure if the person who started the petition knew that "the left jury is the one who drafts the judgment in the council" (if he knew that and dared to target only the presiding judge, it would be wicked), but I wonder how many of the people who supported the petition really knew that.
oraruku7 I think you are right that in principle the jury drafts first, but in the high court, I think the right and left jury are basically evenly assigned! I think that is correct, but in high court cases, the right and left juries are basically evenly assigned. Therefore, I think the chief in this case may be the right jury. rt_luckdragon I remember a former judge who once upon a time blurted out that when a trial is a joint session, each judge has one vote (not a strong verdict because he is the presiding judge), but because of the prominence of the presiding judge, all the votes are focused on him. I remember a former judge who once blurted out that when a trial is a joint session, each judge has one vote (not a strong verdict because of the presiding judge), but because of the prominence of the presiding judge, everything is focused on the presiding judge. In fact, it could happen that the presiding judge judges guilty and the other two plead not guilty.
---
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/日記2024-12-24 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I'm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.