Rights in Japan and America

[Millan31]

Just out of curiosity and a hypothetical question, not encouraging anyone to break laws or do illegal actions. In the US, if someone breaks the law seriously enough- like a felony, then they would lose certain rights (right to vote, right to public housing, right to hold office, employment in certain fields, firearm rights, etc.), but what rights would someone lose after their serious conviction in Japan?

I know in Japan that civilian ownership of firearms is forbidden (so the 2nd amendment in the US)- with some exceptions such as a olympic sport shooter, hunter, farmer, etc. and even then it's more of a "sacred privilege" than a right, which of course is rare- (basically guns are non-existent in the civilian society).

 

[Majestic]

JREF gets some interesting questions...

In the US, voting rules are slightly different in each state, so some felons can vote in the US.

In Japan, you lose the right to vote while you are in prison. The right to vote is restored when you complete your sentence. No effect on application to public housing. For gun ownership, I just read on the internet where there is an interview as part of the license process, and they ask about prior convictions - so I guess that one depends on what the crime was.

 

[Millan31]

So it looks like criminals do get better rights and privileges in Japan (Though it is always better to have a clean criminal record). In regards to the gun ownership, I mean it is not completely non-existent, but I was just speaking in general terms, that it is very rare so that it may (almost) well be that it doesn't even apply in 99% of civilian life or in the civilian society.

(Just for reference, I'm not a criminal. I've never been convicted nor arrested in my life. Only asked these questions just out of curiosity/interest.)

Thanks for the response and this is a very good answer!

 

[Millan31]

I just noticed something... I think I wasn't clear in my question and got an ambiguous answer. I was asking the question to get a "general case" answer, basically in most cases rather than the special case. So for educational purposes, let's just say that since most Japanese people do not own firearms, or that very, very few do and those that do go through a very rigorous process that is very difficult which means may as well not worth the trouble, thus gun ownership is (in the vast majority of the case) forbidden.

(Another way to put it I guess is that if one is going to a country/place where guns are outlawed, banned, forbidden, AND that is the one right that means the most to said person; no other rights are as prominent as that. Then there would not be a much of a difference to said person if he/she does get into trouble. Again, this is hypothetical, so just purely based on facts.)

If based on that fact, then it means someone who cares about nothing else except for that specific "right" would not necessarily lose much in terms of other rights (again I've established that said person doesn't value it or recognize it)?

 

[Majestic]

What are you asking, sunshine? Can you try again in plain English?

 

[Millan31]

What I'm asking is that if someone that values a specific right and only that specific right, nothing more, nothing less; if they are in a country/place where that "right" is non-existent, then when that particular person gets into trouble, it wouldn't matter as much in terms of loss of freedom (assuming that he/she only cares about that one right and all other rights aren't relevant) since they wouldn't have the right in the first place?

That's really all I'm asking about, I don't know what was confusing about my question.

 

[WonkoTheSane]

What do you mean when that person gets into trouble? What trouble? What freedom? Jail? To whom wouldn't it matter? What wouldn't matter?

Really, I have to agree with Majestic, you're not expressing yourself clearly.

Here's my attempt at a translation, let me know if I got anywhere near the mark:

Joe only cares about owning guns.

Joe goes to jail for something.

Joe loses the right to vote due to being a convicted felon.

Joe doesn't give a damn because he only cares about owning guns.

Joe doesn't appear to understand the interconnections between all of the various human rights and the basic fundamental protection each right gives every other right. Joe does not realize that the route to changing the law to ensure the rights he values are protected is paved with all of the other rights. The right to assemble and organize, the right to speak freely and passionately, the right to influence the leadership and direction of government through voting, etc.. Joe, in short, has a very simplistic and single dimensional view of how society functions and is harming himself if he does not stand up for every right even if he (erroneously) believes he is not personally protected by a particular human right.

 

[Majestic]

↑ Yes, all of that.

Also, its confusing because it sounds like you are asking us to gauge how keenly you will experience the sense of loss from not having the right to bear arms if you move to Japan, but then its further complicated by the addition of some sort of crime into the scenario. Its confusing because there is no way any of us can tell you how deeply this sense of loss will affect you (even if you really, really, really like guns). I suspect if guns are central to your life, your well-being, your identity, then Japan isn't the place you.

If, despite really loving guns above all else, you still decide to come to Japan, and then you commit a serious crime in Japan, you will be incarcerated in Japanese prison, and then you will be deported once you serve your time. So, your sense of loss over the gun ownership issue would pale in comparison to the loss of all freedom in prison, and the subsequent deportation from Japan.

That, to me, is the weird part of your question, because you are trying to anticipate the loss you will feel once you have committed a crime, and are pre-empting this feeling of loss by saying that you never had the right in the first place - which is OK if you are able to ignore the complete sħitstorm your life will be while in prison, and ignore the likely deportation once you get out.

 

[Millan31]

@WonkoTheSane
Yes, I think you've pretty much got the translation spot on! I was bringing up a hypothetical situation to try to understand about whether or not one would lose much in terms of freedom if all they cared about was that one right. The example with a fictional character named "Joe" is a good example. In short, if Joe was a Japanese citizen (for discussion purposes, we'll just consider that guns are banned in Japan.) and that guns are the only things Joe cares about, and values nothing else, then based on that logic, Joe would lose nothing when he gets into trouble (imprisonment, fines, legal troubles, etc.) with the law and society.

Now of course, in reality, then no one would really go through all of that trouble or would enjoy such a fate. In fact, most people do value other rights and understand that other rights support each other as well as making sure that fair laws are passed, upheld while bad laws are reformed, removed, or both. Also most people would be at least 2D in their reasoning, perhaps 3D even.

Sorry if I've been rather draining or giving an exhausting read; it's mostly an academic question that I've been wondering for a while and I know that in real life, no one would do that (hence hypothetical situation) because it is futile, dumb, and also hellish to endure all.

@Majestic
First, I am going to guess that you are referring to the proverbial you (not as me but the general "you)? Personally, I live in the US, never got into trouble with the law of any kind here nor overseas. While I support the 2nd amendment, I'm not really, really, really crazy about it. I brought this up because several posts that you made assumed that I was a bad person, but no I am only merely giving a hypothetical situation and trying to learn the "logic" behind "you can't lose what you don't have to begin with" or something along those lines..

I actually enjoyed my time in Japan (though it was short and only in Tokyo), I managed to do some sight seeing and had some great food of course, so again I would say that the 2nd amendment isn't the most prominent right for me (personally).

Anyhow, back to the topic at hand, I am assuming you mean the proverbial you (general), then yes I was referring to if someone (not considering/excluding all the other potential loss of freedom; and only solely focusing that one aspect). I mean I even simplified it to where if someone valued one right (let's even forget 2nd amendment for a moment..) so much then purely based on that right and excluding all other variables, then of course that person would (in their mind/world) suffer no additional loss of freedom. So basically I was referring to a Japanese citizen, or otherwise someone who is living in Japan (not a tourist).

Anyways, the last paragraph sums up my point from the original point pretty well. That's pretty much the answer to that hypothetical situation.

Sorry for the confusion if I wasn't able to explain it well, and hopefully this time I was crystal clear. Let me know what else I am missing and I will do my best to elaborate even further.

 

[Millan31]

So in summary of everything... I brought this topic up, merely to explore the hypothetical situations, logic behind it, and to prove the "If one never had x to begin with, then one would not lose x, because x does not exist."

 

[WonkoTheSane]

It can just as easily be argued that all humans have all rights and that the deprivation of exercising the right does not negate the natural right still held. That a right is a philosophical construct and the very reason it is called a right is that the name itself is a protest against the deprivation.

That a right denied since birth is felt as a loss just as keenly as one denied after having been enjoyed because all humans can see through bars to freedom and yearn to bask in it whether for the first time or the millionth.

 

[Millan31]

So basically, I've proven that if one cherishes a particular privilege, right, or thing, excluding other consequences and other factors, but is that particular privilege, right, or thing is non-existent at the place where one is, then one would have nothing to lose should they get in trouble.

I could give other examples other than Japan or even limit the scope of the example, but I think everything is crystal clear now.

 

[johnnyG]

So basically, I've proven ...

..., but I think everything is crystal clear now.

Good.

 

[Mike Cash]

So basically, I've proven that if one cherishes a particular privilege, right, or thing, excluding other consequences and other factors, but is that particular privilege, right, or thing is non-existent at the place where one is, then one would have nothing to lose should they get in trouble.

I could give other examples other than Japan or even limit the scope of the example, but I think everything is crystal clear now.

A parallel, and work it into a parable if you like...

My father grew up in the Depression Era on a farm in a very rural area in a very poor family. My somewhat younger mother grew up in the same area, minus the dire economic circumstances.

Once, many years after they had married, my mother asked my father about his early childhood and asked about what to her was a perfectly normal and taken for granted thing... riding a tricycle.

It turns out my father didn't have a tricycle as a child. My mother felt bad about what she supposed was bringing up a bad memory for him and asked him if he missed having one.

He said he didn't. "I didn't know I didn't have one because nobody else had one either".

For people who grew up in countries without gun rights, the concept of American style gun rights is just absolutely bizarre. They don't miss having gun rights because they never had them, nor did anyone around them. They don't notice not having them.

I grew up around guns. We always had a good number of shotguns, rifles, and pistols in the house. I got my very own first gun when I was nine years old (single shot .410 shotgun, which I still own 40+ years later) and made a muzzle-loading black powder pistol from a kit when I was in high school. I'm in favor of Second Amendment rights and private gun ownership.... in the U.S.. But the absence of guns in private hands is one of things I like very much about Japan.

 

[Millan31]

For people who grew up in countries without gun rights, the concept of American style gun rights is just absolutely bizarre. They don't miss having gun rights because they never had them, nor did anyone around them. They don't notice not having them.

I grew up around guns. We always had a good number of shotguns, rifles, and pistols in the house. I got my very own first gun when I was nine years old (single shot .410 shotgun, which I still own 40+ years later) and made a muzzle-loading black powder pistol from a kit when I was in high school. I'm in favor of Second Amendment rights and private gun ownership.... in the U.S.. But the absence of guns in private hands is one of things I like very much about Japan.

This is an interesting analogy, it differs from what I mentioned, but it does offer a good insight. That if one never knew about a certain thing's existence, then one would neither be sad nor happy about it's existence.

Also, the last paragraph, I totally agree with you. Japan is a different country from the US, with different cultural norms, values, attitudes, etc., so in their country guns would indeed be a bizarre occurrence (just out of place for them) for them. In fact, I enjoy Japan for Japan and the US for the US.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

When speaking of rights, its vital to keep in mind that much of what the government has deemed your right often as no bearing on what the private sector can get away with doing to you.

I cannot speak for America, but it seems that in Japan, if you are accused of a crime, even though found not guilty, your job is most likely forfeit, and you most likely lost it before the trial even started. Most likely your spouse hit the road and took the kids too.

You might have the right to free speech. But that does not mean any private org has to publish your words. Good luck with your right to free speech while private web sites etc. censor you to death.

In other news, the right to bear arms? Arms are grenades, land mines, flame throwers, missiles, mortars, armored vehicles, napalm, attack helicopters, battle ships and, oh yeah, guns, including the fully automatic variety. So most any American citizen can obtain a semi-auto rifle, pistol or a shotgun. You call that the right to bear arms? That is like saying you are a doctor because you can get aspirin without a prescription!

I am grateful for every right I have. However, the amount people believe their rights are protected is more myth than fact.

 

[Millan31]

@Mark of Zorro
Basically I was referring to a hypothetical situation where "if a person that only values that one right and nothing else," (not considering anything else - consequences such as jail, deportation, criminal record, other rights lost, reputation, etc.) and is also willing to stomach ALL consequences, then that person has nothing really to lose.

As far as your response, personally, I wouldn't be able to do what that hypothetical person would in such a hypothetical, bizarre situation. I've mentioned in many posts while I support the 2nd amendment for what it is, I'm not a fanatical 2nd amendment nut. Again, I'm sure most people wouldn't do it as it is irrational, absurd, and just plain stupid. I only asked such a question from an academic, food for thought, point of view. Anyways, thanks for the response and yes it is always good to be on one's best behavior and I do know that all "rights" are considered important for any citizen of any country that they are in (I've also mentioned that I never recommend people to do anything in the scenario as the scenario is just posed as a educational question wanting to understand the logic and hypothetical situation.)

 

[johnnyG]

..., flame throwers, ...

Gee, pretty legal looking in the U.S., I wonder about Japan...?

--Not regulated by the ATF? Check.
--Can be purchased by someone under 18? Check.
--Does not require a permit? Check.

money.cnn.com/2015/08/13/smallbusiness/flamethrowers-public-sale/

 

[Millan31]

@johnnyG
Huh, this conversation is going in the wrong direction. I didn't inquiry about the legality of certain weapons. This is just a thread to inquire about a specific hypothetical situation regarding rights and whether or not one loses anything (excluding all other consequences and other factors).