Key Takeaways
Japan and the United States are two of the only industrialized popular nations in the humans that continue toexecute criminals . And courts in both countries have even handed down death penalties to criminals who were minors when they committed their offence . In 2011 , for example , three Japanese men weresentenced to deathfor committing four slaying when they were still legally underage .
And yet the four Japanese men convict of one of the most heinous crimes in recent Nipponese storage — the savage slaying of 17 - class - old Junko Furuta in 1988 — were handed comparatively light prison judgment of conviction and set free to violate again .
Why did n’t Junko Furuta and her family receive judge ? And what changes have been made to Japanese juvenile law to see to it that wild crook of any long time are held accountable ?
Junko Furuta’s Murder: An Unspeakable Crime
Warning : the chase contains descriptions of violence and sexual ravishment that may be disturbing to some readers .
To delineate what encounter to Junko Furuta feels like a repetition ravishment of this young devoid girl , but some facts must be established to understand the really abhorrent nature of the criminal offence .
Junko Furuta was a pop eminent shoal student , considered a " good female child " who get high grades and did n’t drink in or do drugs . Riding her bicycle home from a part - time job Nov. 25 , 1988 , she was attacked by a random boy ( Shinji Minato ) who shake off her off her motorcycle and run away . Another boy ( Hiroshi Miyano ) approached , exact to have seen the whole thing and offer to walk her home for condom . The whole affair was a setup between the two son . Minato kicked Furuta off her bicycle , and Miyano kidnap and raped the young miss in a warehouse . He then forebode three of his champion , including Minato , to brag about the violation . The boys were successive sexual predators . They usually let their victim go , but Furuta ’s woe had only start .
For between 40 and 44 day , Furuta was held imprisoned by Miyano , who was a low - grade fellow member of theyakuzaor Japanese Maffia . He and his so-and-so friend tortured , ravish and brutalize Furuta on a daily basis . Her skin was burned with hot wax ; she was suspended from the cap and beaten like a punch bag with golf game society , atomic number 26 rod and bamboo sticks . She was forced to eatlive roach and drink her own urineand subjected to other despicable acts . She suffered convulsions and seizure from untreated infection and malnutrition .
astonishingly , all this took place in the home base of one the boy , Shinji Minato , who lived there with his parents . Minato ’s parent claimed that they did not intervene because they were afraid of their son ’s red behavior and hisyakuzaconnections . It got so high-risk that at one point , Furuta expect her captors to kill her .
When Furuta eventually succumbed to her injuries , her cruel captor tried to demolish the grounds of her slaying by glow her corpse , placing them in an oil brake drum and pass over it all with concrete .
When the police arrested two of Miyano ’s conspirator in January 1989 for the rapine of another young dupe , the teenaged boys unexpectedly mentioned Furuta , call back that was whom the police force were relate to . After authorities get a line Junko Furuta ’s consistence , Miyano and three other new serviceman squeal to the shocking crime . Now it was up to the court to make up one’s mind their fate .
The System Protected Juvenile Offenders, But Not Victims
When the trial of the four high school boy began on July 31 , 1989 , Miyano and his accomplices were referred to in prescribed judicature documents just as " A , " " B , " " C , " and " D. "
" The identity of juvenile offenders in 1989 were not officially disclosed , " explainsSetsuo Miyazawa , a police professor in both Japan and the U.S. , in an electronic mail . Furuta ’s identity as a minor dupe was also speculate to be protected — she was referred to as " E " — but her real name and photo were leaked and splashed across every Japanese newspaper publisher and television receiver program .
The only grounds we know the names of Miyano and his conspirators today is because a Japanese magazine called Shukan Bunshun decided to break communications protocol and name the perpetrator in April 1990 . " To make a retentive story unforesightful , we decide that beasts do n’t have human rights,“saidthe magazine publisher ’s editor - in - chief Kazuyoshi Hanada .
The names of the four young men ( and their ages at the meter ) were :
Back then , anyone under 20 was considered a minor in Japan . In 2022 , thelegal age of adulthoodin Japan was alter from 20 to 18 , which meant that not only could 18 - year - olds now get into into sound contracts , like buying a house ; they could also be tried as adult , open to farseeing prison sentences . Undercurrent law , media outlets can now publish the names and photograph of offenders who are 18 or older after they ’ve been indict for a crime . Those under 18 still stay anon. .
Lenient Sentences and Public Outcry
In a thwarting prosecutorial decision , the four boys were n’t charged with a deliberate act of slaying , but only with " induce bodily hurt resulting in death . "
Only Miyano , the ringleader , was handed the maximum sentence for the less charge , which was 20 years in prison . The others received between five and nine years each .
The Nipponese world was outraged that the demise penalisation was n’t considered for such a heinous crime . In 1983 , the Japanese Supreme Court had established what ’s known as the " Nagayama test " for the death penalty . When Norio Nagayama was 19 , he stole a pistol from a U.S. naval base and mutilate four multitude .
When a lower court decline to consider capital punishment in the case of Nagayama , the Supreme Court prescribe a retrial , saying that the death penalty can be debate for kid in cases where the crime was " terrible and callous . "
What offense could be more " atrocious and indurate " than what those four young man did to Junko Furuta ? Yet each of them walk free after comparatively short prison house terms .
While it is not clear why their sentences were so short , the most probable response was that they were try on as juveniles rather than adults , based on the Nipponese legal system at the clock time . Perhaps the Court thought they could be rehabilitated as they were so young as opposed to being locked up for decades or condemn to dying . The Japan Times observe in 2022that before the amendment to juvenile police , " Decisions on time length were usually made by officeholder at correctional facilities on a typesetter’s case - by - case basis . With the amendment [ which no longer treats 18- and 19 - twelvemonth - olds as minors ] , the terms of incarceration are specific and the period of immurement or probation will be determined by the court . "
The list of criminal offenses was also broaden . In the past , a juvenile could only face deplorable pursuance for slaying or other " acts that result in death . " Now they can face reprehensible charges for robbery , rape , arson and other serious offenses .
Angered by these low-cal sentences , Furuta ’s family filed andwon a lawsuitagainst Minato ’s parents ( in whose home the crimes had occurred ) and were awarded 50 million yen ( around $ 425,000 ) , which Minato ’s family paid by sell their home .
Furuta’s Killers Strike Again
One of the saddest event of the Junko Furuta trial is that three of her four manslayer get on tocommit more crimesand pain more people after their release from prison .
Miyano , who continued to be involved with theyakuza , was arrested for fraud . Ogura was convict of essay murder in 2004 and served another seven years in prison . In 2018 , Minato wasarrested for attempted murderwhen he attacked a adult male with a baton and tried to slash his pharynx .
If the finish of the Japanese juvenile Department of Justice organisation was to reform remiss offenders , not punish them , its effort in the Junko Furuta subject were an abject failure . The Nipponese news show cartridge Shukan Shinchocalledthe later arrests of three of Furuta ’s murderers a " licking of the puerile law . "
The unfairness of Junko ’s case did n’t lead to immediate reform of the Nipponese juvenile justice system , but that exchange in 1997 after a string of tragic tike slaying in Kobe , Japan . In that case , a 14 - year - onetime male child was convicted of killing two elementary schooltime children and badly injuring three others .
The medium report extensively on the child murders , and the Japanese public demanded real justice for the victims . As a result , Japan ’s juvenile lawwas changedin 2000 . The age at which a juvenile could be institutionalize with a crime was lower from 16 to 14 .
