Today, I continue our "burden of proof" series too.

I have mentioned several times in the past that I used to attend law seminars at my own expense, and one of the most surprising stories I heard was

"The difference between the burden of proof for the plaintiff and the defendant in a criminal case trial"

To put a civil case trial in a nutshell, it is a "personal v.s. personal" dispute.

In contrast, a criminal trial is a "state v. individual" dispute.

This is not a good start to the game.

This is because the state (the prosecution) is by far the strongest party in criminal cases.

-----

State: "a professional investigative team (police)," "a group of legal experts specializing in attacks (prosecutors)," "state-of-the-art scientific means of investigation, and ample funds to staff them."

Personal: Basically, "personal private property".

It is like a "nuclear missile v.s. defendant's personal suicide attack with a bamboo spear," so to speak.

-----

Hence, in criminal trials, the following rules are based on the "overwhelming advantage of the prosecution".

The procesution must complete the followings,

(1) without contradiction,

(2) perfectly,

(3) with rock-solid evidence and login that will never be broken, no matter how they is attacked, and

(4) the responsibility to make it clear in court.

The prosecution must complete so much work to win the case.

On the other hand, if the defendant can point out a tiny fraction of the above, say "1%" or "0.01%" of discrepancies or discrepancies, then they "win".

In the law seminar, this was explained with the phrase,

"The defendant wins if he or she can 'shake' the logic constructed by the prosecution, even by just 1mm"

This may seem like a huge advantage for the defendant, but remember - the defendant is dealing with a "nuclear missile" called the state.

In other words, the retrial in the Hakamada case was "shaked" the logic of the prosecution by the "1%" or "0.01%"

(Note that I will not address the merits of this case today.)

-----

As prosecutors backed by state power, "fabricate" is a piece of cake.

Therefore, high moral standards are required on the part of prosecutors, but there are limits to what human beings can do after all.

The assumption that 'he is definitely the culprit' is bound to occur.

To begin with, the conviction rate in Japanese criminal trials is 99.9%.

This is a sickening enough number without looking at it statistically.

In other words, if you are charged in a criminal court, you will almost certainly be convicted.

-----

So, what we need to do, in such a helpless way, is

"To continue to be a "small citizen" who does not attract the attention of state power"

This is the only choice.

-----

The reason I introduce myself at drinking parties by saying, "I have been trying to be a 'small citizen' my whole life," is not just to get a laugh.