6/1【左翼震える】パックン浅い知識で噛みつくも...最強弁護士に完全論破される...!!#参政党#神谷宗幣#片山さつき#小野田紀美#高市早苗#日本保守党

Channel's View Are you aware that the review of the retrial system is currently attracting a great deal of attention? The catalyst was the so-called "Inada Rebellion," in which Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) House of Representatives member Tomomi Inada yelled at Ministry of Justice officials during a committee meeting, "You won't listen to our side of the story even a millimeter!" Inada's proposal was to, in principle, prohibit appeals by prosecutors. The aim is to address the structural problem that "currently, prosecutors can file appeals indefinitely, so trials don't progress at all, and appeals only serve to buy time." ■ The "Inada Rebellion" and the Review of the Retrial System—The Reality of the 9-Year Journey in the Hakamada Case The starting point for the current discussion on reviewing the retrial system was the incident known as the "Inada Rebellion," involving LDP House of Representatives member Tomomi Inada. At a committee meeting, just as the press was about to be shut out, Inada yelled at Ministry of Justice officials, "You won't listen to our side of the story even a millimeter!" Representative Inada's proposal was to, in principle, prohibit appeals by the prosecution. Simply put, her reasoning was that "under the current system, the prosecution can file appeals indefinitely, preventing trials from progressing at all. Appeals are essentially a way for the prosecution to buy time." In fact, the Hakamada case, in which he was wrongly convicted, took nine years to resolve because the prosecution was allowed unlimited appeals. Iwao Hakamada was a man who, for 58 years after receiving a death sentence, had almost his entire life taken away by a crime he did not commit. The fact that nine years were spent on a retrial demonstrates a flaw in the system's design, benefiting no one. ■ Lawyer Masato Takahashi: "People make mistakes, that's why we have a three-tiered judicial system." The program featured a compelling discussion by lawyer Masato Takahashi, who has long been involved in victim support. Takahashi's argument was based on the fundamental principle that "the Constitution allows for a two-tiered system. Why did it become a three-tiered system? Because people make mistakes. It's absurd that only three judges can overturn a decision. Why don't people realize this absurdity? Judges make mistakes too." This perspective, starting from the very raison d'être of the retrial system, is extremely profound in its structure. While Japan's judicial system operates under a three-tiered system, it's based on the premise that "people make mistakes." That's why the opportunity to review past judgments through retrials is guaranteed by the system. His point is that arguments that treat this lightly, saying "even if a retrial is granted, it just means a new trial begins," lack a fundamental understanding of the system. ■ Packun's "Even if a retrial is granted, it just means a new trial begins" is met with Takahashi's sharp counter-argument. Packun attempted to counter this by saying, "Even if a retrial is granted, it just means a new trial begins," but Takahashi immediately countered, "Are there any cases where a decision to grant a retrial was made and then overturned?" This is an extremely sharp argumentative structure. By the time a decision to grant a retrial is made, the probability of acquittal based on new evidence has already been acknowledged, and in practice, there are almost no cases where a guilty verdict is maintained in a new trial. Furthermore, when Packun asked, "Even so, is it better not to grant a retrial?", Attorney Takahashi gave a wry smile and replied, "That's not what I'm talking about," conveying his frank bewilderment at the fact that the discussion was off-topic. ■ The issue of surveillance cameras for death row inmates—Attorney Takahashi: "This wouldn't happen if executions were carried out within six months" In the second half of the video, we introduce a discussion sparked by the news that the Osaka Bar Association recommended discontinuing the use of 24-hour surveillance cameras for female death row inmates. On social media, opinions were divided, with some saying, "Are they claiming human rights after taking away them?" and "The detention center is out of touch." When the program introduced the surveillance cameras by stating, "There has been a ruling that they are illegal," lawyer Takahashi responded with a fundamental argument: "He was being monitored for 22 years. The death penalty must be carried out within six months. If the death penalty is carried out, this kind of thing wouldn't happen." This point is based on Article 475 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which stipulates that "an order to execute the death penalty must be issued within six months of the judgment becoming final." It points out the structural problem where death row inmates are detained in detention centers for extended periods because the legally mandated deadline is not being followed, leading to ...