今般の日大アメフト部内田前監督・井上前コーチに対する不起訴処分は、我が国司法の国際的にも悪名高き弊習であるところの「消極司法」「不介入主義」の典型例と言わざるを得ません。
言うまでもなく我々国民世論は、刑事司法の鉄則であるところの「疑わしきは罰せず」に異を唱えるものではありません。むしろ、斯くまでも不可侵の鉄則なればこそ、万人に平等に適用されるべきであり、その適否に依怙贔屓があってはなりません。
本件の場合、事実関係は多数の証言・証拠により既に国民的に明らかであり、犯人誤認によるいわゆる冤罪の危惧は皆無と言えます。この意味で、冤罪防止という通常の概念規定に言うところの「疑わしきは罰せず」の範疇には属さない案件です。争点は偏に「犯行指示のつもりは無かった」とする両被疑者側の言い逃れだけです。いかに見え透いた言い逃れであろうが、明らかに客観的証拠に反する無罪主張であろうが、徹底的に白々しく否認し続けることにより「ゴネ得」を狙う、という「権力者」や「黒幕」にありがちな厚顔無恥の姑息手段を結果的に奏功させてしまうという、およそ検察なるものの存在価値を根本的に自己否定した、まさに「司法の自殺」と形容すべき典型例が本件不起訴です。
斯かる姑息かつ露骨な「ゴネ得狙い」の潔からざることは重々なるも、もしそれが万人に遍く利用可能な逃避戦術であったならば、まだしも救いの一つもあろうというものです。ところが我が国司法の最も恥ずべき現実は、権力側限定でそのような逃避を許してしまう忖度体質にあります。権力への阿諛迎合や忖度を誰よりも慎まねばならないはずの司法が、自ら進んで権力の犬を買って出、権力者たちの一方的な利益代弁者に成り下がっているのです。
日大は年来、指定暴力団、右翼、天下り官僚といった反社会勢力との「蜜月」ともいわれる癒着関係を指摘されてきた「黒い巨塔」です。鳴り物入りで新設した危機管理学部では、国民公約である設置審の明文規定を一方的に反故にして語学の非常勤講師を大量解任、語学授業を外部の私塾へ丸投げするという仰天の暴挙に出るなど、危機管理のみならず遵法精神や規範意識などの組織的な弱さが露呈しました。しかもこの仰天人事を事実上強行した独裁者である内田被疑者は、あろうことか労組の追及を逃れるために団交出席を拒むという不当労働行為の上塗りを平然と行いました。大学経理の面でも利益相反などコンプライアンス上の疑義が一再ならず表面化しており、それへの直接間接の関与を疑われるのが本件の両被疑者です。不起訴は誰がどう見ても、本来「公的」であるはずの司法が両容疑者とその背後に鎮座まします日大の「力」に媚を売ったとしか解釈のしようがありません。
省みて、我が国における司法判断のあまりにも極端な偏向には、正視に堪えざるものがあります。刑事裁判の何と99.6％は有罪、つまり「お上」である検察の常勝。政府や官公署と私人（含法人）との係争であれば、ほとんどの場合「公定力」なる錦の御旗が振りかざされ、官勝民敗。企業対個人なら、よほどのことがない限り企業の常勝。個人間であれば、上司、権力者、有名人、親や先輩などの年長者、ハラスメントを「する」側の常勝、部下や後輩、ハラスメントを「受ける」側はほぼ必敗。それもそのはず、日本の公的司法の根本姿勢は「消極主義」「不介入主義」、即ちもし司法の介入が無ければ自動的に力で勝ちそうな側を常に勝たせるのです。これでは憲法上の基本権であるはずの「裁判を受ける権利」など、絵に描いた餅以外の何物でもありません。はっきり言ってそのような無芸大食な「司法」など不要であり、国民の貴重な税金で司法官憲を飼っておくだけ無駄です。
特に組織犯罪の場合、末端の実行犯を裁くことには熱心でも、肝心の主導者や黒幕には甘い、ということが我が国司法の積年の悪弊であり、国内外世論からの軽蔑と嘲笑の的です。即ち、対立者間でどちら側を勝訴させるかだけでなく、同じ側の当事者間における責任・罪科の分担を決める際にも、やはり我が国司法お得意の「強きを助け、弱きを憎む」「強者にはヘーコラ、弱者にはオイコラ」的な卑怯卑劣体質は面目躍如なのです。本件にしても、もしこれが日本以外のおよそどの国の公的司法の手にかかったとしても、まず以て内田前監督を裁かずして法の支配は語れない、とのコンセンサスが関係諸官に共有されるところでしょう。実際、日本国内においても、そのようなコンセンサスは一般国民世論の中には健在です。おそらく行政にも、立法にも、そのようなコンセンサスは概ね健在と思われます。換言すれば、行政や立法は一定程度、世論を代弁しているからです。
三権のうち、国民の総意である世論を公然・傲然と愚弄し、「飼い主」たる納税者の意思をこれ見よがしに無視黙殺する「狂犬」は（少なくとも我が国では）唯一、司法だけです。顧みて我々国民の側にも年来の不作為責任が存在します。それは、立法や行政への国民的批判の喧しさに較べると、司法は何故か聖域視され、司法批判を怠る世論の風潮があったことです。今次の職務怠慢検察による不起訴事件を契機として、三権の一角を成すところの司法に対する正当な国民的・国内外的批判の輪を広げて行こうではありませんか。
2018年11月24日 東京大学教職員組合
～～
Judicial incompetence turning Japan into terrorists’ paradise
UTokyo staff union + Greater Tokyo parttime university lecturers union November 2018
The general public living on the archipelago of the rising sun is a far more normal people than they have long been internationally reputed in association with Samurai, Harakiri, Kamikaze, and Yakuza. Certainly, an overwhelming majority of Japan’s resident nationals were duly shocked and disenchanted when the district attorney in charge decided not to prosecute Masato Uchida, the former senior executive board member at Nihon University, the largest private university in Japan, who had also been the Fuhrer of the university’s football team and had persuaded one of his team members into physically terrorist-attacking an opponent player during an official match. The appalling act of terrorism, where the attacker brutally headbutted with his helmet on straight into the lower back of the victim who was thrown high up in the air, has been broadcast and shared to incite national outrage.
Evidence has mounted that Mr Uchida and a coach under his supervision had pressurised the attacker, a student at the university, into the terrorist act. The victim and his family have petitioned that the attacker be tried leniently, on the grounds that much of the blame should fall on the shoulders of Fuhrer Uchida. It has also been uncovered that as a former senior executive, Mr Uchida had been the effective dictator in charge of personnel decisions all over the university.
In spite of overwhelming evidence, however, the DA recently decided not to press the charge against Mr Uchida and the coach. Flabbergastingly, part of the DA’s pretext was that the victim and his family had petitioned for leniency. Namely, their plea for leniency toward the attacker was deliberately misused by the DA in order to favour Fuhrer Uchida and his SS commandant instead. The national public opinion has been dumbfounded.
One needs to be a real connoisseur in order to understand the judicial context wherein this outrageous case is embedded. In essence, “legal justice” in Japan has little to do with true factual justice, who is right and who is wrong, but blindly reinforces the socioeconomic order of the peck between the parties involved, i.e., who is strong and who is weak. In other words, the court of law abandons its mission by siding with the wealthy, the powerful, and the authoritative, who would automatically dominate if there were no law and order. The prosecutor wins in more than staggering 99.6% of all criminal cases, meaning that the defendant is effectively denied the supposedly constitutional right to fair trial. So wins the government against private companies or individuals; the larger company against smaller ones or individuals; the employer against employees; the superior against subordinates; the discriminator against the discriminated against; the harasser against the harassed.
This notoriously reactionary attitude of Japan’s judiciary feigns an ostensible facade of genteel conservatism “protecting the social order and good common sense” all the while effectively encouraging social disorder and thus defying good common sense especially in cases involving organised crimes. Time after time, case after case, the court and the DA are pathologically keen to shoot the messenger more than the godfather. The DA’s undue reluctance to prosecute the Fuhrer and the commandant, is hardly a surprise any longer, although by all means it should be, especially in the light of the fact that the intervarsity foorball league has verdicted guilty and thus purged these two suspects.
Fuhrer Uchida had also been breaking laws by mistreating the university staff. Under his dictatorship, the university personnel attempted to dismiss dozens of parttime lecturers for no good reason other than replacing them with external contractors which would have expressly violated the official terms and conditions for the university’s accreditation. The dictarorial regime had also failed to elect employee representatives in accordance with the labour law, a violation that could legally invalidate all employment contracts and agreements within the university. Hence we, the unions and the university employees longing for law and order in the workplace, expressly unwelcome any attempt in the direction of reviving the influence of Fuhrer Uchida back into the university,
Last but not least, it is particularly noteworthy that the headquarter of Nihon University has allegedly been connected with the largest Yakuza (Mafia) organisation in Japan, one of those “international terrorist groups” sanctioned by the US Department of Treasury. The undercurrent terrorist propensity, either by violence or by dictatorial intimidation, had infested in the university for decades before it surfaced at long last in the said terrorist act led by Fuhrer Uchida.
Hence Japanese legal injustice is not only national disgrace, but a formidable obstacle to the nation’s socioeconomic fairness and wellbeing. The ultimate responsibility rests on the shoulders of the national general public, in that the public opinions have traditionally been far less critical to the legal justice system than to the national government and politics. The recent unjust DA decision shall hopefully incite the belated national and international public condemnation to Japan’s judicial incompetence, which has long been undeserving of the nation’s ostensible “developed country” status.