I feel like I've done my utmost to be supportive and wanted to be of help to Mr. Kanemoto, but I think it was due to my own inadequacy that things ended up this way.
Assuming this statement, which is reportedly leaking from the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office, was indeed made by Prosecutor Yamaguchi during the interrogation, it feels like this single remark encapsulates the fundamental problems plaguing current interrogations in Japan.
In light of recent cases where inappropriate relationships within investigative agencies and the exercise of psychological influence driven by power dynamics have become viewed as problematic, prosecutors are facing strict scrutiny. Even in that context, how "relationships are built" during interrogations must be handled with the utmost care.
The role of a prosecutor is neither to stand by the suspect or defendant, nor to provide life counseling.
What is required of a prosecutor is to elucidate the truth based on objective evidence from a strict, fair, and impartial standpoint, and to collect and evaluate evidence regardless of whether it is favorable or unfavorable.
However, statements such as "I have stood by their side," "I wanted to be a support," and "I lacked the ability" could also be taken as presupposing a psychological dependency or emotional connection between the prosecutor and the suspect that is not originally intended.
Is this the "right thing to do"?
What can be particularly problematic is not mere "dialogue," but rather the formation of a dynamic—within the power asymmetry of interrogation—as if a personal relationship of trust or emotional support exists. This is an element that must be extremely carefully excluded in the venue of fact-finding.
Furthermore, it cannot be denied that this attitude emphasizing "empathy" carries the risk of resulting in psychological pressure on the suspect to conform, such as feeling that "I must meet expectations" or "I must not ruin the relationship." This is a structural problem that could potentially impair the voluntariness of statements.
What must be avoided most of all during an interrogation is precisely the induction of this state of mind.
That is precisely why the dangers of an over-reliance on confessions have been repeatedly pointed out worldwide, and a shift toward an objective evidence-centered approach has been promoted.
A confession is inherently a result that should be corroborated by objective evidence, and should not be guided by the relationship with the interrogator or psychological manipulation.
Nevertheless, if words like "we have been by your side" and "we wanted to be of help" were used during the interrogation, it suggests that the center of gravity has shifted away from the clarification of objective facts toward persuasion and psychological inducement through relationship-building.
What is even more problematic is the point that this statement is alleged to have been made after switching to silence.
The right to remain silent is an important right guaranteed by the Constitution, and its exercise itself must not become a trigger for unfavorable evaluation or psychological pressure.
If emotional words were hurled in such a situation, there is room for it to be evaluated as psychological pressure after the exercise of the right to silence, and careful verification is necessary from the perspective of the propriety of the interrogation.
Furthermore, even if the statements regarding this matter were provided to the outside by individuals supposedly familiar with the internal affairs of the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office, and if this information is already circulating faster than official reports through the press club, that in itself raises a significant issue from the perspective of organizational control and information management.
Regardless of the truth or falsity of the facts, it must be said that the prosecutors' office is currently in a situation where urgent verification and accountability regarding the information leak route and the state of internal governance are required.
If prosecutors truly want to "be of help," the first thing they should do is not extract statements.
Conducting sufficient interviews with relevant parties, thoroughly collecting objective evidence, and accumulating factual findings regardless of whether they are favorable or unfavorable are your true responsibilities.
It is the responsibility of the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office, which trusted the Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau, for having to make a decision on indictment during a 20-day detention without even asking any specific questions.
Constructing the truth through objective evidence is the mission imposed upon prosecutors, and as a result, this serves the interests of both the suspect or defendant and society as a whole.
Criminal justice is not established through human relationships or psychological synchronization.
It is a system that should be supported strictly by objective evidence.
Therefore, rather than debating the appropriateness of the term "stood by them," strict scrutiny should be applied to "what evidence was collected, what facts were verified, and what decision-making process was followed."
Isn't that precisely the attitude most faithful to the fundamental principles of the prosecution: strict fairness, political neutrality, and respect for human rights?
Prosecutor Yamaguchi's remark is
Do you think it's correct?
