Self-Defense is an action that you cannot help taking in order to protect yourself or other people from a criminal offense.
Clause 1 Article 36 of Panel code of Japan says “Self-Defense is inescapable action to protect yourself and other people from urgent illegal offense”
Even if you believe what you did to someone who harmed you corresponds to Self-Defense, it is highly possible for you to be liable to criminal charges of acts of violence and injuring another if you are judged that your case didn’t satisfy the legal requirements of Self-Defense.
On the other hand, Even after you were arrested for assault, if the prosecutors judge you that your case satisfies the legal requirements under unescapable circumstances, they will decide not to prosecute you.
Nobody know when getting involved with a crime. You may become a criminal if you keep believing your wrong recognition towards Self-Defense.
A state of Japanese self-defense and view points towards self-defense
Requirements concluded as Self-Defense by a police officer or prosecutor is extremely severe in Japan. In short, even if you recognize your action to someone who harmed you becomes Self-Defense, the possibility that your case is judged as unjustifiable self-defense is pretty high in Japan.
There is an example story here. A journalist walking a path was picked a fight by a couple of young drunk guys. He was surrounded by those guys and when it was about to become explosive situation, police officer passing by intervened between a journalist and other guys.
Everyone including a journalist, who was present at that place were taken in to a police box and questioned by an officer.
After all, a police department gave prosecutors the files on everyone and asked them to determine to bring charge. Then a journalist was said by a prosecutor when questioning that
“If you are picked a fight by someone, you should escape from the place and call a police immediately.”
Prosecutors requests unrealistic requirements in spite of pretty much urgent situation.
In Japan, there is different degree of recognition between a person who was truly about to be harmed by someone and a person who give an advice based on consideration of legal requirements even though there was absolutely no time for a person concerned to think legal requirements when facing extremely urgent situation.
Japanese prosecutor leans forward to thinking of countermeasure to the situation which is difficult to process without legal viewpoint.
For example, If you inflict injury on a thief who steal in your house by swinging a wooden stick, you are charged for unjustifiable self-defense in Japan.
This tendency can be seen not only in laws related to self-defense but also every single laws in Japan.
Japan is a society that gives preferential treatment particularly to personal benefit than common benefit.
For example,
- Seat belt wear obligation for vehicles and motorcycle lighting obligation became mandatory 20 years after the western countries created the policy.
- An Obligation of placing a fire alarm in a house became mandatory at least 10 years after the western countries created the policy.
- Urban planning is not functioned because the procedure of land acquisition is really complicated because the right of lands possession is strongly protected.
- No fire ax in Japan.
In the US, there is commonly a fire ax other than a digestive organ and a fire hose placed in a building.
This tool is in purpose of destroying to make an escape route in case of fire. In Japan, no matter how urgent situation you face, Japanese society has strong thought that breaking things possessed by someone must not be allowed.
So even though you did it with your benevolence, you have a risk to be sued for damages.
Same as seat belt obligation and motorcycle lighting obligation, Japanese society has strong thought that “an action that interrupts personal free will cannot be mandatory ” . Until other countries emphasized these obligations were quite helpful enough to protect people from an accident, the Japanese government didn’t make any policies for these two cases.
Introducing residence fire alarm was way too deliberate because this influences personal property right in Japan. Actually the government spent 10 years to make a policy for fire alarm installment obligation.
In the first place, Japan has no social consensus towards “a situation that endangers person’s life and personal property ” because there is even no legislation dealing with military emergencies due to forbidding war by the constitution and there is also no legal consensus about the balance between when protecting personal liberties and when protecting common benefit including maintenance of public peace and avoidance of crimes even if limiting a personal right
Therefore, the factors mentioned in laws is processed as priority and a part of “Self-Defense” which is difficult to be applied to a corresponding law makes it hard to be processed as “Self-Defense”.
In case of the United States, Second Amendment to the United States Constitution clearly mentions the right of possessing a gun and there is a consensus for a permissible range of action based on gun and other weapons to protect personal property right.
In addition, because western countries historically experienced many disturbances, wars and revolutions, people have a clear line dividing between to what extent protects personal benefit and to what extent protects public benefits.
In contrast to that, Japan’s consensus until Edo period became useless by sword prohibition announce from the government in Meiji period.
After turning to the Meiji constitution, consensus became history at the same time as defeat in war. After the WWⅡ, Japan has been lasting the situation that the Japan’s settlement of doing no more war is equal to no consensus when needing to prioritize common benefit.
Of course, there is possibility that self-defense is permitted depending on the individual situations but as long as I see the world standard of self-defense, I advice you not to count on this at all.