My turn to spam in earnest :-)

   Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 20:05:02 -0400 (EDT)
   From: lizsue@mtc.ultranet.com (Lizsue)

   At 02:58 5/13/96 -0400, Harold wrote:

   >Japan's criminal justice system is, if possible, even more of a
   >travesty than the US system, but in the other direction.  No trial by
   >jury, (coerced) confession and conviction rates approaching 99.9%

   I heard that while American law doesn't convict someone until they're 
   proven guilty, Japanese law basically doesn't arrest someone until they're 
   proven guilty.

Proven guilty by the *police*....

We seperate effective prosecutorial power from law enforcement, set an
independant judiciary to mediate between them and an effective legal
defense establishment, and in criminal law, have juries of basicly
normal people to serve as a further check.  No system is perfect, but
the English derived legal systems are the best as far as I'm concerned.

   >(Also don't forget the general exemption from the law the yakuza have,
   >at least in times past; the LDP and other power groups cut a deal with
   >them to suppress communists and serious unions, or so is my understanding.)

   I heard they did that to cut down on unorganized crime.  Back when the Cosa 
   Nostra was still active, there were a lot less teenage street gangs in the 
   U.S. simply because those kids couldn't compete with organized crime.  

I'll believe that, but suppression of higher grade undesirables was
also important.  You see that today when yakuza are called in to crack
the heads of annoying shareholders, etc....

   >[ exposition on seperation of powers. ]

   >We have a zillion "checks and balances" compared to parliamentary
   >systems that give one party an effective legislative and executive
   >monolopy on power for the duration of their hold on the legislature.
   >(Once upon a time we had a Judiciary that believed in the rule of law
   >and followed our written constitution, but that was lost in the '30s.)

   Since the American Constitution states that the judiciary must act
   as a balance to the other branches of government, then the courts
   would be violating the Constitution if they did nothing but follow
   the legislature or executive without reinterpreting the laws.

The question here is, should they abandon the written Constitution in
doing so?  They've abandoned the rule of law and substituted for it
the much less satisfying and safe rule of men.  As our Founders
envisioned, their independance from and tension with the other
branches of government helps, but there is no substitute for the rule
of law, a concept going back to at least the 12 tablets of ancient Rome.

					- Harold