6 hours Ago
With a series of incidents on the rise of people being killed or injured due to reckless driving in Japan, the government is moving to clarify criminal penalties in so-called dangerous driving cases. Behind the push for legal reform is an urgency, mainly by bereaved family members who demand clearly defined punishments for crimes involving high-speed and intoxicated driving under the current law punishing dangerous driving that results in death or injuries. On Nov 13, a draft report setting forth the direction for punishment requirements was presented by the Justice Ministry's expert panel committee.
In recent years, there have been cases in which the applicability of the law has been murky at best. Although a revision is welcomed by investigative authorities, legal experts believe clarifying the law may be challenging because of the difficulties in determining "appropriate numerical standards" in dangerous driving cases. A woman who lost three of her close family members in an accident when a drunk truck driver smashed into a car in a city in Gunma Prefecture, eastern Japan, expressed dismay with the current legal system in an interview early this month.
"If the victims' feelings were taken into account, I don't think the system would be set up the way it is today," said the woman, who lost her son, grandson and great-grandson in the accident on the afternoon of May 6. The truck driver accelerated to 90 kilometers per hour, exceeding the legal speed limit, and drifted across the median into oncoming traffic before hitting their car. A woman in another car that was also rammed suffered minor injuries.
According to the accused truck driver Goro Suzuki's employer, although several empty bottles of the distilled spirit shochu were subsequently found inside his vehicle, the Maebashi District Public Prosecutors Office initially charged him with professional negligence resulting in death. The family members of the those who died, who were not satisfied with the indictment, continued their demands, and the district attorney's office later found that alcohol was a factor during a supplemental investigation, changing Suzuki's indictment in October to dangerous driving resulting in manslaughter. An investigative source said Suzuki, who suffered severe injuries in the accident, is suspected of having consumed alcohol during the 40 minutes between when he arrived at work and when he started driving on the day of the accident.
The woman who lost her three family members said, "I would like to see the law made simpler, with a clear statement that 'dangerous driving starts here.'" She is calling for "laws that are easy for the general public to understand." Early this month, the family members of the three who died submitted 83,000 signatures from supportive citizens to the local prosecutors office demanding that Suzuki, 70, be severely punished.
The wife of one of the victims said in an interview, "Through the signature drive, I felt that many people showed their anger in support of my family." The Maebashi District Court approved the change in violation to the heavier statutory penalty during the signature drive campaign, which was held in Maebashi and online. The expert panel that met earlier this month focused on German cases of setting numerical standards for alcohol consumption in defining dangerous driving cases.
Regarding the penalties under the criminal law imposed on persons under the influence of alcohol that make it impossible for them to drive safely, a standard of 1.1 milligrams of alcohol per milliliter of blood is applied in Germany as the blood alcohol concentration. The Japanese government's expert panel determined that the "German cases are worth referring to" after the opinion was raised that the effect of blood alcohol concentration influences all people.
They also argued for setting numerical standards for speed to enforce the law. There are a number of cases involving drivers charged with "negligence" later having their offenses switched to dangerous driving, as in a 2021 fatal accident in which a man who was 19 at the time plowed into a car turning right at an intersection at 194 kph on a road with a 60-kph speed limit. Currently on trial in the Oita District Court in southwestern Japan and set for sentencing later this month, the 23-year-old defendant faces a 12-year prison sentence on charges of dangerous driving for the killing of a 50-year-old man.
The man's defense lawyers argued for negligence in the trial. The majority of the expert panel members were of the opinion that numerical standards could be set with figures representing situations that are "considered to be out of the ordinary." But they envision a "contingency plan" in which offenders are in automatic violation for exceeding the speed standard, while drivers who might be below the speed standard are judged on an individual basis to ensure they are also not let off the hook.
Under the current provision for dangerous driving, prosecutors in charge of investigations are unsure of its applicability. "Setting objective standards makes it easy for officers in the field to understand," a senior Justice Ministry official said, welcoming a revision. "If we can get closer to the sense of public opinion, it would be even better.
" Discussions on legal reform are likely to proceed based on the draft report, but some are concerned about the future. Shuichiro Hoshi, a professor of criminal law of traffic violations at Tokyo Metropolitan University, suggests it is difficult to determine objective numerical standards in cases when alcohol has been consumed because tolerance levels vary from person to person. He also argues speed is greatly influenced by individual factors such as road conditions and driving ability.
There are also a certain number of cases in which alcohol and speed measurements are disputed in court, raising doubt of whether there is a "foolproof technique for proving if standards have been exceeded." Although cautious in its stance, the expert panel has taken the position that it is necessary to create an intermediate criminal offense -- a middle-of-the-road law, so to speak, between dangerous driving and negligence. "Bereaved families are very uncomfortable with the term 'negligence,'" a member of the panel said.
Urging continued discussion with the public, the member said, "More consideration should be given to the types of punishment that cannot be called negligence.".
