When a family court knows best
(From The Japan Times Aug. 26 issue)

少年犯罪に関する家裁の判決に疑問

    In Yamaguchi Prefecture, the family court handled the case of an 18-year-old male student who had been arrested for throwing a homemade bomb into a classroom at prefectural Hikari Senior High School on June 10 and wounding 58 students. The boy targeted one student who was a member of a group that had teased him for his shyness.

    Although prosecutors in the case called for criminal punishment, the court concluded Aug. 4 that the boy should be sent to a secondary reformatory, noting that he had made and thrown the bomb in retaliation for bullying that had caused him considerable anguish.

    The family court made this decision despite acknowledging that the consequences of the boy's act were grave enough to make trial in a regular court possible: A large number of students had been injured and the explosive that the boy had made was capable of killing people. It seems that the Yamaguchi Family Court gave due consideration to the boy's character and the best way for rehabilitating him. The court said the most appropriate thing to do was to help the boy get along better with people and thus to place him under a regimen that would foster a sound development of body and mind.

    Under a Juvenile Law revision effective since April 2001, the cases of juvenile offenders at least 16 years old, in principle, are to be sent to prosecutors for trial in regular court. Exceptions are allowed, however, after the juvenile offender's character and motive for the crime are taken into account.

    Meanwhile, the Osaka Family Court decided Aug. 4 to have a 17-year-old boy stand trial in regular court after he was arrested for stabbing a male teacher to death and injuring two female teachers at Neyagawa Municipal Chuo Elementary School in Osaka Prefecture in February. The boy was a graduate of the school. The court said the inhuman nature of the boy's actions justified having his case sent to prosecutors.

    Still, the court could have been overly influenced by the revised Juvenile Law's policy on severe punishment. During psychiatric tests, the boy was found to be suffering from a diffuse development disability characterized by maladjustment in his relations with other people. The court admitted that repeated rejection by people around him had imbued the boy with a tendency to indulge in fantasies of attacking others. But it said this disorder was relatively light and that he had the mental capacity to distinguish right from wrong, and to know when he should restrain himself.

    In its decision, it expressed the hope that, if the boy were put in a correction facility, an appropriate treatment program that took into consideration his development disability would be implemented. The court's decision seems illogical. If it really preferred that the boy receive appropriate treatment, its conclusion should have been to send him to a care institution rather than to prison.

    On Aug. 17, the Tokyo Family Court decided to put on trial in regular court a 16-year-old student from Itabashi Ward, who was arrested for murdering his parents. He fatally hit his father with a dumbbell and stabbed his mother to death. He rigged a company dorm — where his father had been a live-in custodian — to blow up. Although the boy was about one month short of 16 when he committed the crime, the court decided to send his case to prosecutors, saying his crime was premeditated, "extremely heinous and serious" and had a great impact on society.

    The boy is reported to have told a friend that his parents had become cold and strict with him. The court did not recognize any mitigating circumstances, such as repeated violence against him by the father or other forms of abuse that might have forced him into a psychological corner. At the same time, the court said the boy had big problems with his character and disposition and could not yet dispel hatred toward his father even though he regretted what he had done.

    This family court's decision cannot help leave the impression that it did not do enough to find out why the boy snapped.

    The least a family court should do is to unravel the circumstances and motives behind a juvenile crime. The next thing it should do is ascertain the most appropriate way to help the juvenile start life anew.

The Japan Times Weekly
Sept. 3, 2005
(C) All rights reserved

      山口県立光高校で6月に起きた爆発物を投げ込み事件で山口家裁は8月4日、58人の生徒を負傷させた同校の男子生徒（18）は保護処分が相当との判断を示し、中等少年院送致を決定した。

      家裁は、犯行は生徒に「かなりの苦痛」を与えたと思われるいじめへの仕返しと認定した。

      01年4月に施行された改正少年法の下で、事件当時16歳以上の少年犯罪者は原則として検察官送致され、通常の裁判手続きが適用される。しかし少年犯罪者の性格、動機などを考慮した例外も認められる。

      一方、大阪家裁は8月4日、寝屋川市の小学校で2月に教員1人が刃物で殺害され、2人が負傷した事件で、卒業生の少年（17）を殺人などの罪で大阪地検に送致、裁判手続きを進める決定を下した。

      少年は対人的な不適応などがみられる「広汎性発達障害」と家裁は認定。周囲の人たちに繰り返し拒否された結果、他者を攻撃する空想にふけるようになったとした。

      判決では、少年が矯正施設に入所するならば、発達障害を考慮した治療計画が実施されるべきだとしている。治療の必要性が問われるのなら少年を刑務所よりも保護施設に送るべきだ。

      また、東京家裁は8月17日、同都板橋区の社員寮で起きた管理人夫妻殺害・ガス爆発事件で、両親を殺害した容疑で逮捕された長男（16）について検察官送致を決定している。

      長男は6月20日、就寝中の父親の頭を鉄アレイで殴って殺害し、母親も包丁で刺殺。その後、同室で爆発が起きるよう工作した。

      決定は、父親による暴力行為など両親殺しの背景を十分調査していないという印象を残した。

      家裁は、少年犯罪の背景や動機を精査し、少年の再出発に最適な方法を決定する責任がある。