403

Anti-whaling activist Paul Watson could face up to 15 years’ prison in Japan if convicted (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 3 months ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world

106 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] foxymulder@lemmy.ml 74 points 3 months ago

doesnt japan have a near 100% conviction rate too? they dont prosecute offences if theres a chance of not winning?

[-] tiredofsametab@kbin.run 64 points 3 months ago

It's not 100% but it's super high and, yeah, they usually don't prosecute unless they think they have a really solid case. That said, some of that also includes confessions that some have argued are under duress (and, in the case of foreigners, people who aren't exactly sure what they're signing, though I have no idea how that's legal).

[-] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 7 points 3 months ago

They also can hold suspects in detention without trial or hearing for months while they investigate, if they choose. It's not often discussed but it's a huge part of the pressure/duress.

[-] tiredofsametab@kbin.run 3 points 3 months ago

This is not correct. It's 20ish days (23, I think?)

[-] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 3 months ago

This may have changed since I learned about it in 2008, but my understanding is that they get around that rule by technically "releasing" you and "rearresting" you on suspicion of related crimes. The "rearrests" can stack.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world 49 points 3 months ago

i mean "don't prosecute until they have a solid case" is one way of looking at it, the other is "the courts always side with the police"

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 18 points 3 months ago

Not sure what sort of sentence he's looking at here though.

The guy who actually boarded the ship and tried to assault the captain only got a suspended sentence. And this guy is being tried as an accomplice for that.

It doesn't sound terribly serious, tbh.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 25 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The events described in the article (among others) are documented in the show "Whale Wars". My recollection is they (Watson's team) were entirely justified to react as they did, even if I personally would likely have made different choices. This does not mean it was legal, and I have no opinion on that.

I need to find a donation link for Watson...

Edit: Bottom right of this page, under the petition. https://www.paulwatsonfoundation.org/freepaulwatson/

[-] PanArab@lemm.ee 14 points 3 months ago

Breaking immoral laws is a moral obligation.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024

403 points (99.0% liked)

World News

39019 readers

722 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.