In law, there is a well-known maxim that says, “Let a hundred guilty go free, but not one innocent should be wrongly convicted.” Another famous legal principle is “justice delayed is justice denied.” Today, I will discuss a case that every law student should know and understand and these two maxims can be right explain in this case: the case of Hakamada Iwao from Japan, the world’s longest-serving death row inmate, who was recently acquitted by a Japanese court.
Hakamada spent 46 years on death row, and after nearly half a century in prison, he was finally acquitted when it was revealed that fabricated evidence had been used against him. After spending so much time in prison, waiting for his execution, he became mentally ill. By the end of the trial, he was declared medically unfit to appear in court for the hearing of his acquittal, which was delivered last month. Hakamada had been convicted of murder and arson and sentenced to death in 1968.
The fact of the case was that Hakamada was an ex-professional boxer who was working at a miso processing plant in 1966 when tragedy befell him. The bodies of his employer as well as the man’s wife, and two children were found dead in his house after it caught fire at Shizuoka west of Tokyo. All four victims had been stabbed to death. The authorities accused Hakamada of murdering the family, burning down the house, and stealing 200,000 yen in cash. Hakamada denied charges of robbery and murder when he was first charged but subsequently produced what he now says was a coerced confession, extracted from him after several days of beatings and 12-hour-a-day interrogations.
I think by now we can understand from the facts and circumstances how much Hakamada suffered in prison due to the fabricated evidence against him. It is clear that after enduring years of mental and physical torture, anyone would likely develop severe mental health issues.
The first maxim I mentioned, “Let a hundred guilty go free, but not one innocent should be wrongly convicted,” is reflected in Hakamada’s case. Although he spent 46 years in prison, he was eventually acquitted. However, it took him nearly half a century to gain his freedom. While the judiciary may uphold this principle, it took them 46 years to realize that Hakamada had been wrongfully convicted based on fabricated evidence. In 2014, he was granted a retrial amid suspicions that investigators had planted evidence that led to his conviction for the quadruple murder.
The victims and their families in such cases suffer immensely. If justice is delivered after almost half decades, how can we claim that the law protects society and prevents the punishment of the innocent? In this case, the law already inflicted immense suffering on Hakamada and his sister. It is crucial for the law and judiciary to deliver justice promptly and within a reasonable time. This case highlights why police confessions are often not considered reliable evidence. What happens when a person, subjected to long hours of mental and physical abuse in prison, ends up giving a false confession just to escape the daily agony? Is it the victim’s fault for surrendering to the intense pressure of police interrogation, or does this point to deeper issues of corruption and abuse of power, leading to injustice?
This scenario exposes serious flaws in the justice system, where vulnerable individuals, desperate to end their suffering, may be coerced into false admissions. The responsibility lies not with the victims, but with the system that allows such misconduct to occur.
The second maxim, “justice delayed is justice denied,” means that when legal remedies are not provided in a timely manner, it is essentially as if no justice has been served at all. This phrase is often used by legal reformers who argue that courts are too slow in resolving cases. In Hakamada’s case, although he was acquitted after 46 years, this can hardly be considered true justice.
Yes, it may be seen as a victory for the truth, but not for justice, because to obtain his freedom, Hakamada had to sacrifice crucial years of his life in prison. He became a victim of someone else’s wrongdoing, and it is the judiciary’s fault for taking so long to deliver justice. In this case, the delay itself became an injustice, robbing him of decades of his life that can never be restored.
This case study is crucial for the public, lawyers, the judiciary, and law students. It clearly emphasizes the importance of delivering justice promptly. When justice is delayed, it has far-reaching negative consequences, especially for those who are falsely accused and languishing in prison. For them, timely judgment and a fair trial are not just important—they are essential. Hakamada’s case highlights the devastating impact of delayed justice and serves as a reminder that there are likely many more individuals like him, waiting for their final judgment behind bars.
In India, as of December 31, 2022, there were 5,73,220 prisoners in various jails, of which 4,34,302 were undertrials, accounting for 75.08% of the total prison population. Nationwide, only 23.3% of prisoners in 2022 were convicted of their crimes. Among the undertrials, 52.1% were held in district jails, followed by 35.8% in central jails.
States like Uttar Pradesh had the highest number of undertrials, with 94,131 out of 1,21,609 total prisoners, followed by Bihar, which had over 57,000 undertrials out of over 64,000 prisoners. Many of these undertrials may be innocent or falsely accused, but without timely action from the judiciary, they remain stuck in prison, their lives wasting away. Speeding up the judicial process could save countless lives from being ruined behind bars and restore their freedom.
Although the law includes a concept of compensatory jurisprudence in criminal cases, this principle, which provides financial compensation to individuals harmed by the actions of others, raises important questions. In criminal cases, compensatory jurisprudence allows courts to order the accused to pay compensation to the victim when passing judgment. However, my question is: how can we calculate the amount of compensation in cases where the accused has become a victim of our system? While compensation can be awarded for wrongful detention, what about compensation for wrongful judgment?
For the public, it may seem that justice has been served in Hakamada’s case, but has he truly received any meaningful remedy? Can he ever regain the youth and years he lost during his wrongful imprisonment? These are not just questions; they are the harsh realities of the situation. It is high time for the judiciary to act promptly so that no innocent person has to suffer like Hakamada.
One of India’s longest-running legal disputes, known as the Berhampore case, was resolved last year after 72 years by a bench of the Calcutta High Court. Notably, the Chief Justice, Prakash Shrivastava of Calcutta High Court, was born a decade after the case was initiated in 1951. The Berhampore case is recognized in the National Judicial Data Grid as the oldest case ever heard in any Indian court.
In conclusion, the Hakamada Iwao case of Japan and the Berhampore case of India indicate glaring inadequacies of such legal systems in dispelling the needed outcome of both expeditious delivery and the dispensation of justice. The case of Hakamada is a perfect epitome of what horrific wrong convictions can do to a person: an innocent man lost nearly half of his life due to systemically flawed justice and fabricated evidence. The suffering of him and many others like him to await justice illustrates just how badly judicial processes need reforms. The Berhampore case, which lasted more than 72 years, further brings home the urgency of speeding up legal processes so that erosion of justice does not take place. Both are sharp reminders of the fundamental principles by which law should live: the protection of the innocent must take precedence over punishing the guilty, and justice can never be delayed. Considering these incidents, it is the duty of the judiciary that no human should go through what Hakamada went through, nor as the men of the case of Berhampore did. Then only would we regain our belief in the legal system and fulfill its basic ideas for justice.
Dr. Pyali Chatterjee, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, The ICFAI University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India
