The conviction rate of the first instance in the Japanese criminal court is 99.9% (According to the judicial statisticis in 2010, 61585 cases were convicted and 79 cases were not convicted). It means that only one case of a thousand cases indicted by the Japanese public prosecutors is not convicted in the criminal court. If it were the same around the world, we would not feel it so irrational. However, the conviction rates of the first instance in the other criminal courts all over the world are quite different. Please refer to the following data of some countires around the world （http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/marvellous157/15459469.html ）.Therefore, the conviction rate of the first instance in the Japanese criminal court is historically and logically abnormal. It is presumed that the conviction rate 99.9% may be beyond even that of Nazi Germany according to the overall examined information(It is estimated as approximately 99.5%). Whoever seriously examined the conviction rate, they would regard it as definitely depending on totalitarianism. The administrative branch and judicial branch would be monolithic in separation of powers. The Japanese power system is characterized by the extreme concentration of vast authority in the administrative branch. However, ministers democratically erected seem to be just puppets controlled by administrative bureaucrats(please refer to http://tsuigei.exblog.jp/12867606/ a French news program on TV”Ｚｏｎｅ Ｉｎｔｅｒdｉｔe”).
Of course, Japan (a so-called developed country) has adopted the separation of three powers. The judicial branch, administrative branch and legislative branch should have mutually been checked and balanced. However, actually, the administrative branch rules and controls the judicial branch and decides what should be guilty or not. In this respect, according to “Why Is the Japanese Conviction Rate So High?”,written by J. Mark Ramseyer (Harvard Law School) and Eric Rasmusen (Indiana University) as follows:”Conviction rates in Japan exceed 99 percent -- why? On the one hand, because Japanese prosecutors are badly understaffed they may prosecute only their strongest cases and present judges only with the most obviously guilty defendants. On the other hand, because Japanese judges can be reassigned by the administrative office of the courts if they rule in ways the office does not like, judges may face biased career incentives to convict. Using data on the careers and opinions of 321 Japanese judges, we conclude that judges who acquit do indeed have worse careers following the acquittal. On closer examination, though, we find that the punished judges are not judges who acquitted on the ground that the prosecutors charged the wrong person. Rather, they are the judges who acquitted for reasons of statutory or constitutional interpretation, often in politically charged cases. Thus, the definite punishment of acquitting judges seems unrelated to any pro-conviction bias at the judicial administrative offices, and the high conviction rates probably reflect low prosecutorial budgets instead.”?」（http://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwple/9907001.html）
By the way, the Japanese government grants the point “Japanese prosecutors are badly understaffed they may prosecute only their strongest cases and present judges only with the most obviously guilty defendants”. The Japanese government and the public prosecutor’s office are proud of their so-called superior prosecutors because the abnormally high conviction rate becomes possible owing to their high capacity. Simultaneously, the criminal court is only an institution which approves of their prosecutors’ indictments without almost any objection. That is to say, prosecutors seem to monopolize the final decision of guilt in the criminal procedure. The separation of three powers doesn’t function at all at least between prosecutors and criminal judges.
This reality is quite similar to the relationship between Hitler’s government and its criminal courts in Nazi Germany. The separation of three powers between Hitler’s government (the administrative branch) and its criminal courts (the judicial branch) in Nazi Germany malfunctions. In Judgment at Nuremberg, the judges of Nazi Germany have monolithically testified that they have never known about the exact information of Nazi and Hitler’s atrocities. However, they were an important part of Nazi Germany. Finally, they found guilty.
Similarly, the criminal procedure of Japan may be extremely risky because only a few cases in error prosecutions of capital punishment against defendants have been esposed in a past few decades. I wonder if the government has never announced falsely executed cases. Japanese bureaucrats get used to accept "a white bird" as "a black bird". Japanese get used to accept the conviction rate 99.9% as natural and rational because they are under mind control by the double-faced Japanese bureaucrats. מְנֵא מְנֵא, תְּקֵל וּפַרְסִין