Foreigner crimes in Japan (split from Japan Bashing)

Glenski · 23 Aug 2008

pipokun wrote: Again, it is unfair to compare the crimes between people with the public official visa status and the locals.

I replied: Why? Japan does it. That's why I brought it up.

pipokun responded: Not Japan, but the people incl. you did the interpretation to prove the lower crime rate of the public officials related to SOFA.
What Japan does is just to show the data.

Wrong, pipokun. The Japanese NPA shows the data in its own way (numbers of crimes instead of percent per capita), and that is a false interpretation, not merely showing the data.

Re: the Okinawa site stats on crime for 1972-2001
Pipokun wrote: I don't know the reason why they don't translate it into English, either. Just refer to the page 86 and 87 above to satisfy your interest.

What the heck are you talking about? The stats page I linked was totally in English. Thanks for nothing.

I wrote: What's your point?
pipokun wrote: Nothing in particular, but it is interesting to know the differences between the two countries.

More useless response.

riermann wrote:
They are off-base crime statistics. The Japanese police has nothing to do with anything going on on-base. Remember, the US military members are off-base only on weekends, and they still commit many crimes. This is embarrassing. Average Japanese are off-base 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The comparison seems a bit skewed.

I understand what you are trying to say here. Time spent in the general public and all. Still, you are making the same mistake as the Japanese, by using number of crimes instead of percentage per capita. The military still wins out, but as you and I both pointed out, they lose in image because of the publicity since they are (the point of this thread, mind you.....) foreigners.

Oh, and I apologize for showing blog stats, but I was trying to reply quickly here. Where can we find the accurate ones you seem to know?

pipokun · 23 Aug 2008

Glenski said:
Wrong, pipokun. The Japanese NPA shows the data in its own way (numbers of crimes instead of percent per capita), and that is a false interpretation, not merely showing the data.

More useless response.

Again, it is your false interpretation. The data also show the increase of coming foreigners as well as the definition of them, foreigners except
a) permanent residents (incl. the special permanent residents)
b) SOFA people
c) People with unknown resident status

What the heck are you talking about? The stats page I linked was totally in English. Thanks for nothing.

I am talking about the intentional misleading and/or reluctance of updating data. So far, I've never heard that the activists fairly mention the recent trend, decrease of crime in Japan.

Glenski · 23 Aug 2008

Pipokun,
It is not my interpretation that is in dispute here. The NPA is the one who interprets the data in the tables. It is they who tell the public misleading information.

Are the numbers of foreigners rising? Yes.
Is the percentage of crimes committed by foreigners larger than those by locals? No. But the police will not put things that clearly. They merely say that "foreign crime is on the rise" and cite numbers of crimes, not percentages, which is more accurate. Misleading.

So far, I've never heard that the activists fairly mention the recent trend, decrease of crime in Japan.

Then, that only nails the coffin shut on what I wrote earlier. You never read any of the links by Debito, Japan's leading human rights activist, did you?

Please, moderators, wherever you are. Do we have to stand for such insipid remarks that merely prolong the agony of this thread and make it more useless than it really is?

pipokun · 23 Aug 2008

Glenski said:
Pipokun,
It is not my interpretation that is in dispute here. The NPA is the one who interprets the data in the tables. It is they who tell the public misleading information.
Are the numbers of foreigners rising? Yes.
Is the percentage of crimes committed by foreigners larger than those by locals? No. But the police will not put things that clearly. They merely say that "foreign crime is on the rise" and cite numbers of crimes, not percentages, which is more accurate. Misleading.

Just take a look at the table 2-18 below.
The misleading interpretation by the NPA you might say clearly shows you the significant increase of coming foreign population.

http://www.npa.go.jp/hakusyo/h19/honbun/pdf/19p02000.pdf

I know the increased coming foreigners include innocent travelers, young or old, and your interpretation of the statistical population includes them, right? So I brought up the similar argument like anomouse above before, that is, the Japanese behavior in other countries, but I don't know why you pointed it out as a pointless argument.

When you use "foreigner" in your interpretation, you want to use it as big statistical population as possible.
But unfortunately, your interpretation, "much more non-Japanese here in Japan", does not account for the stable or gradually increase of non-Japanese imprisonment rate around 8%.
http://www.moj.go.jp/TOUKEI/t_k02.html

*snip

You never read any of the links by Debito, Japan's leading human rights activist, did you?

I am not for or against Debito, but he must be great for all non-American people if he would do the same mysterious behaivors to roam around for nothing, shoot photoes of airport security staffs, and record their conversation. I want to study how to speak English modestly.

If someone is a human right activist here, I hope he/she should reveal more about the reason why even Japan Communist Party strongly opposes the coming Human Right Law by the ruling LDP and Komeito, and maybe DPJ.
I don't need any human rights for myself, but I do want to see a bit transparency and fairness in the due procedure.

Glenski · 24 Aug 2008

pipokun said:
Just take a look at the table 2-18 below.
The misleading interpretation by the NPA you might say clearly shows you the significant increase of coming foreign population.

Since you don't read my links, why should I read yours?

I don't know why you pointed it out as a pointless argument.

Because it is not related. The topic at hand is discrimination of foreigners based on their crimes (and those of locals) in Japan.

When you use "foreigner" in your interpretation, you want to use it as big statistical population as possible.
But unfortunately, your interpretation, "much more non-Japanese here in Japan", does not account for the stable or gradually increase of non-Japanese imprisonment rate around 8%.

You lost me. What is the relevance here?

I am not for or against Debito, but he must be great for all non-American people

Why do you exclude Americans?

...if he would do the same mysterious behaivors to roam around for nothing, shoot photoes of airport security staffs, and record their conversation.

You have a very narrow view, if that what it is, of what he does.

If someone is a human right activist here, I hope he/she should reveal more about the reason why even Japan Communist Party strongly opposes the coming Human Right Law by the ruling LDP and Komeito, and maybe DPJ.
I don't need any human rights for myself, but I do want to see a bit transparency and fairness in the due procedure.

WAY off topic! Please start your own thread on this.

riermman · 24 Aug 2008

Percentage per capita seems low just because the US military members are exempt from the jurisdiction of the local law most of the time. The statistics is tricky.

pipokun · 24 Aug 2008

Since you don't read my links, why should I read yours?

Just take a look at the table 2-18 below.
The misleading interpretation by the NPA you might say clearly shows THE PUBLIC the significant increase of coming foreign population.

*minor correct* sorry for my English
http://www.npa.go.jp/hakusyo/h19/hon...f/19p02000.pdf

You don't need to read the link above, for I just use the statistics as you may think it would cause the misleading. The interpretation is by Debito or you after all.

The topic at hand is discrimination of foreigners based on their crimes (and those of locals) in Japan.

If you call the statistics discriminatory, what is your unfairness that intentionally ignores the data in the same statistics.

riermman The statistics is tricky.

Right.
http://www.npa.go.jp/hakusyo/h19/honbun/pdf/19p02000.pdf

Glenski · 25 Aug 2008

riermman said:
Percentage per capita seems low just because the US military members are exempt from the jurisdiction of the local law most of the time.

How do you figure? They are obliged to follow any and all laws on and off base at all times.

The simple fact is, the stats are not that "tricky". Percentage per capita is the only fair way to compare locals with SOFA foreigners.

If you call the statistics discriminatory, what is your unfairness that intentionally ignores the data in the same statistics.

I guess you didn't read any of the previous thread, did you? Sigh.

riermman · 25 Aug 2008

#33
You are either ignorant or dishonest. Check out the sofa agreement. (notice the terms such as exclusive jurisdiction, primary jurisdiction, etc)

Glenski · 25 Aug 2008

riermman,
Could you be polite and use my name? I use yours.

I object to being called dishonest. As for ignorant, I am aware of certain exemptions for people with SOFA:

ARTICLE IX.
2. Members of the United States armed forces shall be exempt from Japanese passport and visa laws and regulations. Members of the United States armed forces, the civilian component, and their dependents shall be exempt from Japanese laws and regulations on the regis-tration and control of aliens, but shall not be considered as acquiring any right to permanent residence or domicile in the territories of Japan.

and

ARTICLE XII.
7. Members of the civilian component shall not be subject to Japanese laws or regulations with respect to terms and conditions of employment.

But, don't you think this says it all? (emphasis is mine)
ARTICLE XIV.
Persons, including corporations organized under the laws of the United States, and their employees who are ordinarily resident in the United States and whose presence in Japan is solely for the purpose of executing contracts with the United States for the benefit of the United States armed forces, and who are designated by the Government of the United States in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 below, shall, except as provided in this Article, be subject to the laws and regulations of Japan.

8. Japanese authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over the persons and their employees referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article in relation to offenses committed in Japan and punishable by the law of Japan. In those cases in which the Japanese authorities decide not to exercise such jurisdiction they shall notify the military authorities of the United States as soon as possible. Upon such notification the military authorities of the United States shall have the right to exercise such jurisdiction over the persons referred to as is conferred on them by the law of the United States.

not to mention this...
ARTICLE XVI
It is the duty of members of the United States armed forces, the civilian component, and their dependents to respect the law of Japan and to abstain from any activity inconsistent with the spirit of this Agreement, and, in particular, from any political activity in Japan.

and let's not forget the bulk of ARTICLE XVII
(b) the authorities of Japan shall have jurisdiction over the members of the United States armed forces, the civilian component, and their dependents with respect to offenses committed within the territory of Japan and punishable by the law of Japan.

(b) The authorities of Japan shall have the right to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over members of the United States armed forces, the civilian component, and their dependents with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security of Japan, punishable by its law but not by the law of the United States.

Here's what I'm using as the basis, in case anyone else is interested.
wwma.net - This website is for sale! - wwma Resources and Information.

pipokun · 25 Aug 2008

If my cousin currently working in the US were arrested and sentenced, he would be categorized into "non-U.S. citizen and Asian". He is just a Japanese salaryman willing to climb up the corporate ladder back in Japan, though.

Arrests by Race, 2006
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_43.html
White
Black
American Indian or Alaskan Native
Asian or Pacific Islander

U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens sentenced in U.S. District Courts under the U.S.
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t5352007.pdf
U.S. citizens
non-U.S. citizens

Then what do you think, Glenski, are the differences between race/citizen and non-citizen used in the US and foreign visitors (coming foreigners I used above) in Japan?

Needless to say, "foreign visitors" in the misleading J statistics or coming foreigners I used above do not include permanent residents or the SOFA people. And so far, no statistics by race.

Rather hard to find the perfect statistics or category to satisfy all, isn't it?

Glenski · 25 Aug 2008

Why bother comparing situations with the USA?

Race? Mixed bag and too hard to qualify in this world of globalization and mixing of blood. How about nationality, which is already part of the links I've provided? But you'd know that if you had read them!

Glenski · 26 Aug 2008

Interesting how this thread has moved a second time, now to a Society forum. Why isn't it listed in the Serious Discussions thread?

orochi · 26 Aug 2008

Glenski said:
Interesting how this thread has moved a second time, now to a Society forum. Why isn't is listed in the Serious Discussions thread?

This site has way too many forums.

Emoni · 26 Aug 2008

Glenski said:
Interesting how this thread has moved a second time, now to a Society forum. Why isn't is listed in the Serious Discussions thread?

What is it with wanting to put everything in the Serious Discussion section lately?

wheehee3 · 27 Aug 2008

(a) The military authorities of the United States shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the United States armed forces or the civilian component in relation to

* (i) offenses solely against the property or security of the United States, or offenses solely against the person or property of another member of the United States armed forces or the civilian component or of a dependent;
* (ii) offenses arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.

These offenses are excluded from the Japanese criminal stats. (ii) is regardless of on-base, off-base.

(c) The custody of an accused member of the United States armed forces or the civilian component over whom Japan is to exercise jurisdiction shall, if he is in the hands of the United States, remain with the United States until he is charged by Japan.

pipokun · 27 Aug 2008

A major correction

I am sorry that it is true that the English translation lacks the blue bar graph meaning the total number of visiting foreigners in the original below.
But the original table clearly shows the trend which proves much more non-Japanese visitors here. And the original interpretation mention the recent trend about the internationalization or globalization in Japan.

ﾂ図2-18
ﾅ?Oﾂ坂?伉人窶愿ｼﾂ坂?佛ｽﾃ陳絶?昶?ｹy窶堙鯛?藩??愿ｺﾅ?Oﾂ坂?伉人窶敕?催淒椎ｸ窶ｹ窶慊湘ｳ窶ｹﾂｵ窶堙個絶?寨?
Table2-18
Number of visiting foregners and
total number of foreign visitors, arrested foreign visitors (penal code offenses and special law offenses)
https://jref.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=102&pictureid=725

Who the police wants to mislead at the table?

It seems to me that the original post here wanted to say that the ordinary Japanese would be misled by the notorious, discriminatory or biased statistics. But I don't know how many Japanese would read only the English translation without reading the original table.

Glenski · 28 Aug 2008

pipokun said:
Who the police wants to mislead at the table?

Government officials who give them money to work on. General public. Correct me if I'm wrong, but many times this information is given out sparingly by the NPA just to make statements that the NPA wants to make, instead of providing the whole story for complete accuracy and scrutiny. [/QUOTE]

pipokun · 12 Sep 2008

Mizuho Fukushima is an ultra-liberal chairperson of Social Democratic Party Japan.
She presented a question about the crimes related foreigners in Japan 5 years ago. She also shared the idea like Glenski, Debito and me, "Crime and Foreigner".
Since she is a lawyer, she is not stupid (hopefully), but is just forgetful because the former chairperson was officially granted the existence of SDF and the US force in Japan. But if I remember correctly, she brings back the anachronism, "no SDF, no US force, YES, THE ARTICLE 9"

Question
http://www.sangiin.go.jp/japanese/joho1/syuisyo/157/syuh/s157002.htm
Official Answer
http://www.sangiin.go.jp/japanese/joho1/syuisyo/157/touh/t157002.htm

Reference: The overall crime rate in Japan
347558/126,155,000*100
0.27%
厳しさを増す犯罪情勢

TABLE 2-1 (from the official answer): Permanent residents incl. special permanent residents
http://www.sangiin.go.jp/japanese/joho1/syuisyo/157/touh/stimage/t15700203.gif

5199/713,775*100
0.72%
The permanent residents were 713,775 in total.
http://www.moj.go.jp/PRESS/030530-1/030530-1.html

All rates above are related to the penal code offenses, not including offenses related to the special laws such as immigration-related for the purpose of fairness. (pipo)

It is up to you to increase the denominator by adding the innocent tourists or expats in order to claim "FEWER NON-JAPANESE CRIME RATE THAN THE JAPANESE".

All I can say is:
that the police does not publicize any specific data in their crime reports, even though some might claim the reports would mislead the public;

that all police reports I read added boring phases such as "the increased non-Japanese, internationalization, globalization", we actually have the great trend of the more non-Japanese visitors here;

that the safety is not guaranteed without cooperation from all parties, Japanese or non-Japanese; and

that I did/do/will not vote for SDPJ.

hepta · 15 Dec 2009

There is crime everywhere in the world.
Foreigners are human also.
Even many Japanese people commit crime outside of Japan.
I know one Japanese man got arrested in Cambodia. His charge was taking nude pictures of young underaged Cambodian girls.

Astroboy · 15 Dec 2009

hepta said:
Even many Japanese people commit crime outside of Japan.

Are there any source/stat ?

hepta · 15 Dec 2009

Astroboy said:
Are there any source/stat ?

Japanese man jailed for 6 years for taking nude photos of Cambodian kids
Friday 17th July, 06:48 AM JST

PHNOM PENH —
A Japanese man was sentenced Thursday to six years in jail by a Cambodian court for taking nude photos of children, a court official said from the coastal town of Sihanoukville. Kim Eng, presiding judge at the Sihanoukville Provincial Court, told Kyodo News by telephone that the man, 32-year-old Shunichi Nakagawa, was also fined 3.5 million riel (approximately $875), to be used for compensation demanded by the victims' families.

Nakagawa was arrested and charged in August last year after complaints were filed against him by the parents of seven boys he had photographed in the nude. At the court's hearing Thursday, he admitted having taken nude photos of Cambodian boys aged 11 to 17 after having given each of them the equivalent of $1 to $7.5, Kim Eng said. Nakagawa told the court he had worked in an electronics factory in Japan before arriving in Cambodia as a tourist.

© 2009 Kyodo News. All rights reserved. No reproduction or republication without written permission.

Astroboy · 15 Dec 2009

Even many Japanese people commit crime outside of Japan.

I am asking "Are there any source/stat ? indicating your above post". Can you read my English ?

hepta · 16 Dec 2009

Astroboy said:
I am asking "Are there any source/stat ? indicating your above post". Can you read my English ?

I just did provided you the article.
The source is in japantoday site.
If you want to find the article so badly then go to japantoday site and find it by yourself.
Why should I provide you the stat?

Astroboy · 16 Dec 2009

hepta said:
I just did provided you the article.
The source is in japantoday site.
If you want to find the article so badly then go to japantoday site and find it by yourself.
Why should I provide you the stat?

"One article" does not indicate "Many". Or in your launguage, "Many" means "One" ?

I repeat "Are there any source/stat indicating Many"?.

Foreigner crimes in Japan (split from Japan Bashing)

Just me

先輩

Just me

先輩

Just me

Registered

先輩

Just me

Registered

Just me

先輩

Just me

Just me

便利屋

先輩

後輩

先輩

Just me

先輩

Registered

先輩

Registered

先輩

Registered

先輩

Similar threads