Wrongly convicted man denied right to vote in general election

Wednesday 19th August, 06:32 AM JST

TOKYO —

The defense counsel of a 62-year-old man who was wrongly convicted of the 1990 murder in Ashikaga, Tochigi Prefecture, has filed an objection to a local election committee decision that he is not eligible to vote for the Aug 30 general election, lawyers said Tuesday. The defense of Toshikazu Sugaya, who is likely to be acquitted of the murder of a 4-year-old girl in an expected retrial, blasted the decision by the Ashikaga city election committee as ‘‘unjust.’‘

The lawyers said they had requested to the election committee on Aug 12 that the suffrage be restored to Sugaya so that he can vote for the Aug 30 House of Representatives election. But the committee turned down the request saying his guilt, finalized by a 2000 Supreme Court ruling, would not lose its validity even if a retrial is decided or sentence is suspended, according to the lawyers.

The public officers election act says a convicted person is not eligible to vote until he or he serves out the sentence.

In June this year, Sugaya was released from 17 years in prison on the strength of a fresh DNA evidence that effectively proved his innocence. A retrial is certain to take place as a high court decided to reopen the case.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 33 Total Comments Show All

terebiko at 11:31 AM JST - 19th August

If he promises to vote for the LDP, I'll bet Aso will put in a good word for him. Seriously though, first you are not innocent until proven guilty. Once proven guilty, despite being released, he must now prove himself to be innocent to have his record clear I guess. Whatever, maybe he will have a jury trial next time though...
knowitall at 11:37 AM JST - 19th August

Unfortunately, Mr. Sugaya's retrial has not been held yet. He has been released from prison, but the trial that will finalize his innocence hasn't started. So, technically, he is still has a sentence. After the retrial (where the prosecutors will not press charges), he will have a clean slate and be able to vote in the next election. i.e. he will no-longer be a "convicted person". Right or wrong, it is a matter of formality and not a permanent suspension of rights.

Just setting some facts straight, and not going into the morality of such a decision.
escape_artist at 11:49 AM JST - 19th August

Sounds to me like those in control are guessing at which way this guy might vote (anti-LDP and their minions) and want to prevent him from doing so, i.e., preventing him from adding yet another vote that would oust them from their cushy jobs. Yeah, I know... I'm just guessing. But sometimes common sense needs to retake the so-called rule of law, which so often in Japan myopically means no flexibility, common sense or fairness. This mindset isn't unexpected, though, in a society of people so used to, and expectant of, being told what to do and when to do it.
sf2k at 12:19 PM JST - 19th August

I guess the government wants to be sued again. This should be immediately granted and thus the issue removed, but no, not in Japan.

Must. Stick. To. Rules. Even if it makes Japan look like a raving nutter. No rule to allow him to vote, viola!
Farmboy at 12:23 PM JST - 19th August

knowitall,

You could be right, but that isn't what it says:

...his guilt, finalized by a 2000 Supreme Court ruling, would not lose its validity even if a retrial is decided or sentence is suspended
knowitall at 12:35 PM JST - 19th August

You could be right, but that isn't what it says: ...his guilt, finalized by a 2000 Supreme Court ruling, would not lose its validity even if a retrial is decided or sentence is suspended

His retrial being decided (i.e. scheduled) is not the same as a being held and found innocent. A suspended sentence is when you are found guilty but not sent to prison. The translation from the Japanese (my sources for the clarification) is not very clear.
So, I think I am right (at least until proven incorrect).
kirakira25 at 12:48 PM JST - 19th August

I would like THIS guy to run for office! He can`t vote for himself, but maybe everyone can vote for HIM!
Farmboy at 12:55 PM JST - 19th August

Knowitall,

OK. Thanks. I hadn't read the article elsewhere.
tapetptape at 01:05 PM JST - 19th August

"....would not lose its validity even if a retrial is decided or sentence is suspended..."

slightly ambiguous statement - most likely lost in translation - however my guess is that the definition of "even if a retrial is decided" means whether "it has been decided to hold a retrial". This makes some sense as simply because a retrial is granted, does not mean 100% innocence. However in this case, the innocent verdict is pretty much inevitable so rather ridiculous that they need to complete the retrial before the innocent verdict is officially acknowledged and the government clears his criminal record. Hopefully with DNA evidence being utilized more frequently, an amendment to the relevant law for this type of issue will be addressed (much like the "children can't get a transplant law" which was finally amended recently). Don't see it getting fast tracked though.
Statistician at 03:38 PM JST - 19th August

I guess they are afraid he won't vote for the LDP after being wrongly imprisoned all these years.
presto345 at 04:44 PM JST - 19th August

Ｓｏｍｅｔｈｉｎｇ is very wrong here.
LIBERTAS at 05:01 PM JST - 19th August

Justice denied: Twice.
Shaolin7 at 06:32 PM JST - 19th August

Thanks for the clarification, knowitall. I'm still mystified as to the need for a re-trial however. If his innocence is all but a foregone conclusion, then why not proceed with a simple pardon and appropriate compensation? It would be appreciated if someone with legal knowledge could explain this, as it doesn't make any sense from a logical standpoint.
biglittleman at 09:33 AM JST - 20th August

Shaolin7,

The government wants to save money. The re-trial will shed light on the faults of the police force and court system. This could lead to embarrassment and possibly more re-trials. It could also open the door to lawsuits and compensation. They don't want to incriminate themselves, thus taking things slow.
mnemosyne23 at 05:10 AM JST - 21st August

Similar situations arise in other countries with similar justice systems. Just because evidence has surfaced that proves a convicted person's innocence doesn't overwrite the original guilty verdict that is still legally on the books. That can only be done through the formal legal system, either by retrial, pardon or acquittal. It sounds quite stupid, especially for the innocent man rotting in a jail cell, but certain legal procedures have to be followed.

That said, the high profile nature of this case should have guaranteed this poor man a speedy re-trial and/or acquittal. This voting fiasco would be a moot point if he'd already been properly processed out of the criminal corrections system and fully re-integrated into society without the spectre of false guilt still looming over him.