Akio Ogam, right, his wife Kaori, center, and an unidentified man show the media photos of their three children who died in a 2006 hit-and-run case.

High court gives drunk driver 20 years for accident that killed 3 children

Friday 15th May, 11:20 PM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 113 Total Comments Show All

likeitis at 11:24 PM JST - 17th May

thundercat, we have reached the point in the debate where I can no longer listen you. Look at this:

Oh really? What caused the accident?

This in reply to my reply to:

The fact is the ONLY reason they ended up in the water

We were talking about how they ended up in the water. Now you switch to how the accident happened.

Sorry, but I am sick of running around in circles with you.
thundercat at 10:37 AM JST - 18th May

likeitis

Now you switch to how the accident happened.

Did I? Not once do I mention 'how' the accident happened. All I said is what I had been saying all along, the accident caused the car to go in the water. Check and mate.
Richard_the_First at 11:54 AM JST - 18th May

It's really very simple. One car hits another, that car then falls in to the river drowning 3 kids. If the first car wasn't under the control of a drunk driver, those kids would, almost certainly, be alive today as the accident probably would never have happened in the first place. Forget guard rails and what ifs. The fact is that Imabayashi made his choice to drive under the influence that night. I passed my driving test at a school in Tokyo and it was drilled into us again and again about the dangers of drink driving. Stories about the huge fines for the driver being caught at or just over the limit, even passengers too, and possible jail sentences for more serious incidents. He (Imabayashi) would also have been told the same at his school.

He took accepted the risks, lost, and will now have to pay the price regardless. I am amazed that he out on bail actually.
nandakandamanda at 12:09 PM JST - 18th May

Haven't got time to read all the replies, but what actually caused the accident? We know the car in front suddenly slammed on the brakes, but does anyone know why? Was he not paying attention to traffic conditions up ahead? Or do we not ask this question?
cleo at 12:16 PM JST - 18th May

Haven't got time to read all the replies, but what actually caused the accident? We know the car in front suddenly slammed on the brakes

No, we don't know that the car in front suddenly slammed on the brakes - that's what Imabayashi's lawyer tried to claim. What we do know is that Imabayashi drank copious amounts of alcohol - beer, shochu and brandy - and then got behind the wheel of a car. That's what actually caused the accident.
nandakandamanda at 12:39 PM JST - 18th May

Thanks Cleo. In your mind then, whether the three children were or were not wearing seatbelts, whether the mother was or was not watching TV on the converted Car Navi, and whether the father was or was not talking on his mobile phone so that he didn't notice the traffic ahead was stopped until the very last moment... all of this is irrelevant, and an example needs to be made of Mr Imabayashi?

And what do you make of this? "Shunkichi Takayama, a lawyer who is an expert on trials related to traffic accidents, strongly criticized the latest court decision, calling it ‘‘extremely problematic.’’

‘‘The alcohol detection device used on the defendant right after the accident showed that he was only slightly intoxicated...’’

and

Takayama speculated that the court may have reached the ruling to appease growing public calls for harsher punishments in drunken driving cases.
Richard_the_First at 01:04 PM JST - 18th May

If he is a patsy, so be it. If his 20 years in jail saves another child's life because someone thinks first before driving while sloshed, then that's the price he and thus society will have to pay.
WilliB at 05:58 PM JST - 18th May

This is lynchmob justice.

What is really scary to see is how many JT readers jump on the bandwagon, blood in their mind and rope in hand.

What century are we living in? Does "rule of law" mean anything any more?
nandakandamanda at 09:39 PM JST - 18th May

How many years is largely irrelevant now. Inside or outside jail, wherever he goes, he will be haunted by the memory of those children, and full of regret for his own carelessness. He is unlucky to have been the fall guy at this very moment in history, and in such a terrible way. All of the invective from the public must seem to him to be punishment from heaven, for some terrible past deed.
WilliB at 11:11 PM JST - 18th May

Richard:

" If he is a patsy, so be it. If his 20 years in jail saves another child's life because someone thinks first before driving while sloshed, then that's the price he and thus society will have to pay. "

Deterrent by example? That is not a new idea. By the same logic, medieval emperors dotted the landscape with beheaded corpses.

The legal thinking expressed here by some is unbelievable.
Richard_the_First at 09:25 AM JST - 19th May

WilliB, this is Japan, a country that embraces capital punishment like all backward thinking countries do so it wont change. Maybe he is a patsy, maybe not. Either way I amazed that he is out on bail actually. Being Japan, I wonder why he doesn't do the honourable thing.
vikiscorpeo10 at 04:57 PM JST - 19th May

WilliB, this is Japan, a country that embraces capital punishment like all backward thinking countries do so it wont change. Maybe he is a patsy, maybe not. Either way I amazed that he is out on bail actually. Being Japan, I wonder why he doesn't do the honourable thing.
flammenwerfer at 10:32 PM JST - 19th May

20 years? he was lucky...I HATE drunk drivers period. If you drink and then drive and then kill someone then that on the same level as pointing a gun to their head pulling the trigger. Dumbing down drunk driving causing death to a negliegence charge is beyond words. Alcohol and the way it warps society and our tolerance to its abuse is quite sad. Imabayashi murdered three kids, in my book and he should go a for a very very long skate and not just him - but any twisted drunk soul causing death on the roads can join him too.
Himajin at 08:59 AM JST - 20th May

In your mind then, whether the three children were or were not wearing seatbelts, whether the mother was or was not watching TV on the converted Car Navi, and whether the father was or was not talking on his mobile phone so that he didn't notice the traffic ahead was stopped until the very last moment

There was no evidence that the father put on the brakes. Imabayashi claimed that at first, but it wasn't brought up again after interviews of the parents were completed. The children were in belts and car seats, a fact which evidently made it very difficult to get them out quickly. The mother told on TV about how hard it was to unbuckle them.

The law still states that even if the car in front of you puts on the brakes you should be able to stop without hitting them! If you can't you're following too closely or you're speeding.
jonobugs at 03:38 AM JST - 23rd May

nandakandamanda:

Your first post states that you didn't have time to read the responses and wanted to know what happened.

When Cleo kindly summarized it for you, you then replied with a very interesting response that suggests many scenarios, none of which were mentioned in any article I have previously read.

It seems you are either playing devil's advocate or have information that no one else here has.

1) Father on the phone. Where was it stated that he was on a phone? 2) Mother was watching TV. Even if she were, what does that have anything to do with the accident? In any case, Navi's won't play videos or television when the car is in motion. 3) Children didn't have their seatbelts on. Someone already mentioned that they actually DID have their seatbelts on, so I'm not sure where you got this bit of information from. IN any case, since the car was dumped into the river, perhaps it would have been easier had they NOT had their seatbelts on.

So, were you making up these scenarios to prod a response out of people, or were they reported somewhere else?

From what I read and from what I know (living in Fukuoka) the causes of the accident were:

1) Imabayashi had been drinking. How much seems to be in debate. Some people on this site state that he had been drinking quite a bit, but I'm not sure where they are getting their information from. The article states that his BAC wasn't extreme though. In my personal experience I believe that even a moderate amount of alcohol will affect a person's judgment.

2) The speed limit on that particular bridge is 50km/hr. Imabayashi was reportedly traveling at 100km/hr. If we assume that the family in front of him was traveling the speed limit, that's still 50km/hr faster which is way too fast to react properly even if you're paying close attention.

3) By Imabayashi's own admission, he was not paying attention and had looked away from the traffic. Couple this with slower reactions speeding 2x the limit, it's not particularly surprising that he had an accident. In fact, it was probably sheer luck he hadn't had an accident sooner.

According to other posters, there is no indication of either car braking. I'm assuming that means that there were no tire marks on the pavement at the scene of the accident. So, even if the car in front did suddenly brake, Imabayashi should have been able to stop had he followed any of the rules of the road such as traveling a safe distance behind the first vehicle, and of course not speeding.

My point is only that the fault is clearly Imabayashi's and not the first car. I maintain that it would remain 100% his fault even if it were proved that the first car did brake suddenly since Imabayashi broke not one or two rules but so many that he literally was 'an accident waiting to happen'.

Most of the comments have been on the sentencing and I feel that it has been thoroughly covered but I will say a few things. Although I feel that Likeitis' arguments are unattainable, I do like his one statement that perhaps atonement is better suited than punishment in this case. Those 3 children can never be brought back, but incarceration seems rather pointless as this is a terrible tragedy not something planned. Maybe a life long ban on driving, heavy financial penalties where the money is given to either the parents or at the very least organizations to prevent this sort of thing happening again and also heavy community involvement to car accident victims. Instead of 20 years in jail, perhaps 20 years of doing these things where he is not a burden to society, but rather helping society. I'm just throwing ideas out there. I don't really have a clear agenda for this sort of thing.

I just know that if I were one of the parents I would initially hate that guy, but I would also realize that it wasn't malice, but stupidity and selfishness and negligence that brought this accident about. Throwing him in jail for the better part of his life won't bring back the children and won't help anyone else for that matter. Maybe 20 years of helping other people might change him...maybe not, but I doubt 20 years in prison would make him a better person.

I think the main thing I WOULD want to incarcerate him for was his act of trying to run. THAT bit deserves punishment.