Violence in Japan

Why is the Japanese crime rate — most notably the homicide rate — so low? As of 2014, the homicide rate (per 100,000) was around 0.3. For the sake of comparison, Sweden's was around 0.9, France's was around 1.2 and the US' was around 4.4.

It is worth noting however that this is a fairly recent development. Japan's homicide rate remained similar to that of most European countries (in the 1.0-2.0 range) until the late '80s. It only started to plummet around the 2000s.

Even more baffling is Japan's suicide rate, one of the highest in the world at a whopping 20+. Sweden's is around 12.0, France's is around 14.7 and the US' is around 12.6. So the violent death rate is actually higher in Japan if you factor in "cases" where the killer and the victim actually are the same person.

Is there any explanation for this trend?

Other urls found in this thread:

Shut the fuck up, weeaboo menace

Answer: the police label unsolved murders as suicide in order to lower their crime stats.

source: hot fuzz

Because race is real and the Japanese are not primitive unga bungas

The police cover up unsolved murders by declaring them suicides which is also part of why the high suicide rate. They also don't have a gun culture. They are culturally more introverted so their agressions will be taken out more on themselves.

Japanese Culture is all about respect and the honor system and shit right?
Maybe people find it more Honorable or some shit to kill themselves instead of going on a killing spree or having to be in a fucked up Life situation?

But the homicide rate in Japan used to be similar if not even higher than it is in the US today…


If this is true doesn't that mean its likely that Japan has a murder-rate similar to the US even despite not having the "gun culture" that liberals complain about.

I could now pull out a whole string of articles about gruesome homicides and rapes that took place in Japan but i don't wanna bother.

Let's just say that Yakuza are basically a legalized criminal organization and that they've been doing dirty work for the ruling LDP party for more than 50 years.

Let's just say that Yakuza are basically a legalized criminal organization and that they've been doing dirty work for the ruling LDP party for more than 50 years.
Can you enlighten us with some sources on this (preferably books/documentaries)?

It's almost like absence of multiculturalism, and strong familial tradition that puts focus on education/work ethic leads to high trust, and industrious societies, but that would be what this board considers boot-strapping so NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH

This. Institutions in Japan rely heavily on meeting hierarchy's demands for results and maintaining reputation at all costs. That's why schools infamously tend to under-report or straight up conceal serious cases of bullying for instance, because that would hurt that school's public image in what is already a fiercely competitive system.

For the anecdote: The Ace Attorney series of video games was originally written as a satirical take on the Japanese court system's inquisitorial system which makes it very hard to be successfully cleared of all charges if you ever are put on trial.

Of course they exist, I can think of a dozen batshit insane cases of the top of my head as well. But statistics, for all they're worth, tell us that they simply do not happen on the same frequency as they do in the US or even Europe.

because the police and the yakuza have a peace agreement, and they work together to control crime

it's actually fucking dystopian

Truly a utopian society!

Japan was ethnically homogeneous in 1960 too and that didn't stop them from having a 2.8 homicide rate — much higher than in current-day "multicultural" Europe.

Surely you mean "success" and "deference", which is why the Japanese labor force is so overworked, exploited, spineless and powerless even by neo-liberal standards.

It's so "high trust" that each year thousands of people would rather kill themselves than keep up with the social pressure associated with Japanese society.

It's not easy to compare different countries because you can't isolate all factors so compairing changing policy within the same country tells you more certain info.

I recall hearing they fake crime stats in order to make people feel safe. This also includes framing or coerced confessions of innocent people just to have someone to lock up.

The Yakuza have helped the Japanese state immeasurably by busting the unions and destroying any sign of labor movement in Japan, both pre-WW2 and after. Under American control they truly became a branch of the LDP. They do all types of illegal shit under legal measures, drug trafficking, money laundering, etc. They're very open about themselves in public, there are legit businesses in Japan known for their Yakuza ownership. No one bats and eye because the state (LDP is a state) and Yakuza cooperate.

made by NrX GANG

I remember reading stories about how pre-war yakuzas would attack striking workers with fucking katanas. Is that true?

why do you think they wear suits of armour now?

side note: the riot scene at the start of akira is dope


In Japan, police do not open a murder investigation unless they know they can prove it was a murder. They chalk it up to suicide instead, if they can't.

They're living in Japan. That's the only sort of situation available.

Japan has a ridiculous amount of police per capita, among other factors

Japan is actually not a high trust society. I think I'm gonna write a really long post about this now, so that I can just repost it everytime immigration comes up.

So I'm a guy who's been very concerned with migration since reading Putnam's famous 'e Pluribus Unum' study which claims that social trust goes down dramatically in more ethnically heterogeneous places in America. Like a total autist I've been reading a lot of studies on ethnic heterogeneity and trust since then (truth is, some say one thing, and some another).

So first of all, to clarify a few points.

Europe is one of the most mono-ethnic continents in existence today, due to large scale ethnic cleansing during and following the second world war (Czechya and Poland, for example, kicked out their Germans). Most ethnicities received their own state. Even with new immigration waves, most European countries are still about 80-90 per cent white and most non-white people have segregated, centred around the cities. that. According to this map the mono-ethnicity of Europe is comparable to that of Japan.

You conflate high trust with social conformity. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark and the Netherlands are real 'high-trust' societies according to the modeling posted above (based on surveys), while Japan, actually, falls just short of this label. The Nordic countries and the Netherlands are not characterized by social conformity but by free self-expression.

Now, the point that I'm interested is where you point out that in 1960 Japan had a 2,8 homicide rate. Well, yes, but in 1960 Japan wasn't as urbanized, 'welfarized' and economically prosperous as it is now. According to the modeling I have posted above, there are multiple factors important (strongly correlated) to the level of impersonal (society-wide) social trust. Incredibly important to these are having a welfare state, a high gdp, and economic equality, and a well-functioning state. Japan really started to grow after 1960 and so you'd expect homicide rates to drop starkly after 1960. They did, and the rates dropped more slowly when gdp started to stagnate.

Imo comparing the effects of ethnic composition is therefore meaningless when we compare undeveloped and developed economies. But in the modeling above, ethnic homogeneity still correlates almost as highly as gdp (-.4 to -.67) with societal trust! The societies that are high-trust (the Netherlands, Canada Scandinavia, and China) are all ethnically strongly homogeneous (excepting Canada) and, maybe with the exception of China, developed. They also mostly reject the neoliberal state (the Netherlands and Scandinavia are corporatist) and have mostly have a welfare state.

So multi-ethnicity is not a disaster in a developed economy but it's still negative and something to be avoided imo. It's just one of the imporant factors, not the sole factor, that can together push a society towards high trust.

As an aside, migrants will solve none of Japan's welfare problems since they as a group tend to require more welfare money than they pay in taxes. In the pic posted above, the Danish financial ministry points out that immigrants, taken as a whole, cost about half (59) to the national budget compared to what ethnic Danes actually put in (taken as netto, meaning paid taxes minus costs). This is subtracting Western immigrants from the whole, since Western immigrants are the only group that actually pay more than they need from the welfare state. I've read a 2003 Dutch CPB (Centraal planbureau) study which also notes that migrants cost money to the state and are not a solution to 'vergrijzing' (the population becoming relatively older).

People who argue that Japan needs to take in migrants now are badly deluded imo. Teaching those people Japanese, finding them homes, teaching their children, is just going to weigh down the Japanese state even more unless the Japanese treat them like slaves and give them no benefits or language education whatsoever.

Japan can't escape the looming disaster anymore imo, unless it just about forces the Japanese to have children to up the birth rate.

Oh note how low homicide rates are also strongly correlated (-.4) with hight trust.

if you can't trust a site like this who can you trust?

They give a link to the study they're quoting and a literal screenshot from said study. I do not discuss the article otherwise. Also, disqualifying everything I said based on a link to a partisan site is just weak.

I don't speak Danish and neither do you, so we can't interpret the study, and we certainly shouldn't trust a site like that to do it for us

learn danish you pleb

Yeah, you're right. I was a naive posting that screen; but I did use it with another, Dutch study in mind by our largest economic statistical bureau. It concludes that migration works for migrants, people that manage to complement migrant skills, and employers. It then notes that migration is mostly pushed by employers who stand to gain the most!

My point was that immigration will not solve Japan's problems and I stand by it. Japan would need massive numbers of people with completely different cultures; with a lack of skills; who don't speak the language; who need housing and aid for integration.

Oh, and this screen regarding net contributions (taking from the study) resembles the screen posted by the partisan sity, but for my country. So, basically, from being born to dying, Dutch people cost money (netto) to the state. But non-western immigrants cost double that amount.


Never heard the 80s dub before, I guess it makes me a heathen but I prefer the modern (relatively speaking), the music kinda stands out more.

Nobody here ever claimed that would be the case.

Interesting post!

Doesn't it at least compute in it? It would be neat if you could provide a thorough definition of what "high-trust" actually refer to. Also, why the huge disparity between say Belgium (where I live) and the neighboring Netherlands?

Do you have any idea why? I mean, it's interesting to see it correlates, but it doesn't actually tell us anything about the causation. For all we know, it might be a proxy…

How do you "avoid" multi-ethnicity in a globalized world like ours without stepping on immigrants' face? I mean, I agree that in an ideal world nobody would have to be forced my market imperatives to uproot himself from his native social environment, but that's not the case right now and we can hardly blame third-world migrants for seeking better prospects in the developed world.

But then, how do you explain the fact that Japan isn't actually high-trust even though it is economically developed and ethnically homogeneous?

Lady Gaga Kesha Timberlake nigger rap lil nigger rap Skrillex etc vs enlightening anime

Look at the fucking art countries produce if you want to compare them

Have you ever taken a look at the sort of material dominating the incredibly popular pornographic manga market? Most of it qualify as some of the vilest shit I've ever seen in my life.

Because there no niggers in Japan, isn't that obvious?

The fact that “meat toilet” is a tag in itself is enough to make your stomach turn. Just in case anyone here thinks it’s jut innocuous fun, Japanese soldiers thought of their comfort women and rape victims as “meat toilets”

There actually is a burgeoning trap scene in Japan:
KOHH - Dirt |
SHINE - kiLLa |
Pakin - Anxiety |
BAD HOP - Ocean View |
Big I'z Mafia - Living Dead |
DJ CHARI & DJ TATSUKI - Bitch to Au |
JP THE WAVY - Cho Wavy De Gomenne Remix |

soy based diet breeds docile beta male population

Are you saying that soyboys are the superior race?

Thanks for reminding me why America has to be stopped at all cost.

Didn't that study show more that, in the short term, people in areas of ethnic diversity in America tend to "hunker down" rather then interact with or trust members of their community?
Also, I'm not understanding your point here. Your saying that Japan IS ethnically homogeneous, yet it has lower then normal trust for an ethnically homogeneous country.

No one here is arguing about Japan's welfare problems or has even stated that migrants would solve that. We were discussing how the Japanese capitalist system would survive given how its operating under the replacement rate currently. Once the older generation retires, who will fill their positions? The declining birth rate is a product of the daily demands of its capitalist system, so how do you make that system continue to run in the same capitalist fashion it is without taking in immigrants to compensate?

This was not what anyone was talking about. Were discussing what may be needed for its capitalist system to survive.

Stopped from doing what? These Japanese artists chose to make trap music, you know.

Japan doesn't have the same legacy of ethnic conflict that America has. Whatever they may have had with the Ainu appears to be of less impact and handled differently. Americas indigenous peoples were settled in sparsely populated areas throughout the Midwest while Blacks flocked to cities in the North. Crime still wasn't as high as it would become until the Iran–Contra scandal and the funneling of cocaine and Soviet weaponry into American streets.

Japan has had a basically fascist government since the 1940s. They aren't even a democracy really.

Europe's problem on the other hand probably has to do with the rash influx of unaccounted migrants and all the problems related to such. Japan avoids such problems by operating a strict entry policy.

I'd argue that the all the former fascists have now become the most irreligious places in the world compared with historically democratic and socialist places. Japan and probably easterners by extension have more of a sense of collectivity compared with the western habits of individuality. Their income gap is less than the US's but still wider than other developed countries. Of course a lot of their current circumstances have to do with their history and position in the global geopolitical playing field.

I kind of like this Asian trap more than alot traditional American music of this type being produced atm. Even American artists on reaction videos when asked about working with them are willing to do so. What could happen in a display of irony would be for them to get turned down.

Stop throwing the word "fascism" around so inconsequentially, it compromises its actual meaning. Just because a government has been mostly dominated by a specific party for decades doesn't make it fascist.

Did anyone else think of dentist the mennis when they red this?

Try learning about the government you're trying to comment on before you make asinine statements you anti-anti-fa freak.

How about showing us where Japan deviates from being your average Western "Democracy" NATO slave? (Protip: it dosent)
You know instead of just calling him names and being a dick?

Xenophobia, strong sense of nationalism supported by the government, the government works hand in hand with corporations and gangs, and they're currently ramping up their military for some imperialist adventurism and expansion.
Why don't you just shut your stupid mouth.

Somewhat relevant.

Every Modern nation has a certain level of Xenophobia present in it
Though i will admit Xenophobia is more Mainstream in Japan
Plenty of socialist/communist goverments (Including Russia mr Lenin Cap) have used Nationalist propaganda in its messaging
Its not Unique to Capitalism/Fascism
Like Most other nations?
A Nation should be allowed to field its own Military force imo
Like what the Pacific ocean islands?

Japanese military can't and won't do shit without American blessing. Americans always keep a large force in Korea so Japan is unable to project power towards it They can't threaten anyone, not China, North Korea, nor Russia, they're stuck on their islands with American bases. The so-called Japanese ultranationalists are literal puppets of American interests and all they ever do is bark for show in chorus with their counterparts from South Korea. Japan is a dying nation strangled by neoliberalism like so many other countries in the world.

To add, the only political party today in Japan that actually wants to restore Japan's national sovereignty is ironically, the Communist Party. Japanese commies are more nationalistic than corrupt shitheads from LDP and DPJ. That's how fucked up Japan is.

I'm willing to bet I know a looooot more about Japan (and a lot more about fascism) than you pretend to.

Post-war Japan was not fascist, period. The elections were basically rigged by the CIA, sure, but that has nothing to do with fascism.

Congratz, you've just described pretty much every fucking nation-state in the world right now.
Fascism is a specific political phenomenon, not shorthand for "stuff I don't like and can't properly inquire into without throwing buzzwords around".

well gee user

bourgeois moralists get out

I don't care that this stuff exists, if some people get a kick out of it then great for them. I was responding to the guy claiming Japanese culture was somehow purer or milder than American culture.

Not sure what point you're trying to make, but if you're trying to argue that almost all nation-states in the world are literally fascist, then you really ought to read some books.

Why don't you stop being a faggot and tell everyone what the Real True Pure definition of fascism is then mister bookreader

I like Griffin's and Paxton's definitions.



I'll answer your reply first and I'll see whether I can respond to the other poster later today!

I'd say it differs, to be honest. China is a country with a corrupt government, huge inequality, and a gdp not up to developed standards. So you'd definitely be able to make a case for social conformity as important to high social trust. But Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Canada are just not conformist societies so it doesn't seem to be necessary, if perhaps useful.

I would add that social conformity does not trust make. Conformity might just be perceived as a 'mask' where people act how they should in public, but are still deemed selfish and untrustworthy behind their behavior. I can imagine that conformity might work for and against impersonal trust.

In the study, it's a society where more than fifty percent of the societal inhabitants indicated that 'most people can be trusted in contrast to that you can't be too careful in dealing with people'. So, basically, people aren't out to get you and you can trust them.

Omdat wij gewoon superieur zijn ;p. I dunno, according to the perceived corruption index Belgium is perceived as somewhat more corrupt than the Netherlands by its inhabitants. Our GDP per capita is about four billion dollars higher than yours. Belgium is also fractured between a french and dutch speaking population that might impair societal trust.

Well, according to this study, people get more nervous on a train as its ethnic diversity increases.

Remember that the study mentioned mentions impersonal trust (trusting the whole society instead of just your neighbours of small village). Who are you inclined to trust more? The people that look like you and behave like you and which you identify with? Or relative strangers that you just can't figure out? Multiculturalism has not made the Dutch, for example, relate to Muslims as part of the in-group. We (unconsciously) perceive them as the out-group, higher educated people have just been socialized better to hide it (which you could call political correctness).

When I go to Groningen or to Rotterdam, I meet people that are like me and identify with me; it just helps. And because we all have money, there just isn't much of a reason to screw each other over.

Consider Africa, which is very multi-ethnic and in which states are usually politicized along ethnic lines. Wider society doesn't care about you; it cares about the in-group. In this article, written by Francis Deng who, if I remember correctly, if from Sudan, ethnic diversity is viewed negatively.

'A few states in Africa enjoy a high degree of homogeneity or, at least, a relatively inconsequential diversity. Botswana, for example, reflects exemplary cohesiveness, democracy, stability, and sustained growth.'

True, correlation is not causation. But it's a strong correlation and I wouldn't bet the future of societies on it not being causative. Also, trust is correlated with the welfare state, which seems to be dependent on a homogeneous society willing to pay for anonymous members of the same society.

tbh you don't, but all limits to migrating are harming someone; and you can't let too many people in without destroying your welfare state. As posted above, non-western migrants cost more money than they contribute. Just like pensions or sick-insurance, allowing migration is therefore a form of charity. A euro invested in a migrant is a euro less for the sick or the elderly. You will always have to prioritize someone. Migrants compete with the natives for social housing and have low participation in the labour market (they often don't speak the language, can't bring human capital along or are just unqualified). They undercut the native workers by working for lower wages (which is why the cpb noted that employers are pressuring the Dutch government to open the borders). We can pay off people that are out-competed now through the welfare state, but if we have to cut benefits because of an 'overload' those latent tensions are going to come up.

I'm not angry with them; it's completely logical what they're doing and anyone would do the same thing in their place. But allowing them in is charity, unless we agree to cut down wages and abolish the welfare state and a cohesive society. Even if you want to give it, you can only give so much charity.

Afaik the Japanese dislike and distrust their politicans and, like I mentioned, their particular brand of social conformity might not help trust whatsoever as it might just make people and their intentions look 'unknowable'. Directness at least makes people look open, instead of like they're playing a part. Posters here also mentioned the tolerance of the Yakuza, that can't help. Japan is also perceived as a tad more corrupt than the Netherlands (and also Belgium, I think). But, tbh, there's probably a lot of contingent shit going on in Japan that I don't know about.

A study in France from some time ago says the opposite :
Because private banks have the power to create money. Ultimately "le race realism" is always treating the symptoms and never the causes.

Japan also has a tradition of emphasis on the community, for example with cleaning at school. This kind of education has an impact on culture and values, and could be emulated, instead of treating "muh culture" like some ethereal, inexplicable thing that can't be changed forever.

Because they're too enslaved in capitalism to have the time to kill each other.

Interesting. That being said, is there actually any known correlation between trust and crime? I mean, trust in Japan is mediocre and yet they have a ridiculously low crime rate. You'd think that low crime rates would elicit high trust, but that doesn't seem to be the case…

By the way, it also appears trust is a very subjective factor. I mean, whites feeling nervous around non-whites isn't caused by some sort of bizarre biological impulse, it's caused by socially-constructed expectations (regardless of their validity). If the mass media and career politicians go on and on about how immigrants are invaders, leeches, criminals and terrorists — then obviously the same people who read the news or watch TV are going to behave accordingly. And you can't exactly blame immigrants or even multi-ethnic society for that.

>A study in France from some time ago says the opposite :

Ah, well, then I might be wrong on that count. I'd have to look into it more closely.

? Race realism is 'scientific' racism. When did I bring up Autism Level or whatever? - '(they often don't speak the language, can't bring human capital along or are just unqualified).'

Do I refer to genes or race or whatever here?

For a welfare state, there are different groups that need money. You have to choose how much money you give what group.

How is this relevant? You know printing money just inflates the currency, right, or are you making another point?

Again, I'm not doing that.

Have to leave now, but I posted a list of correlations in that first post above. Homicide rates are in there (-0.3)

This is a libertarian think tank, they're going to do everything they can to destroy the reputation of the welfare state — like claiming it is unsustainable. And they'll gladly use immigrants as a lever to achieve exactly that.

Funny you should ask, OP. This drop in the already low homicide rate is partially related to the high suicide rate and to the government the statistics look better, but the main cause is most likely widespread life insurance fraud. But the funny part is that it's the insurance companies that are committing it.

The takeaway:

Porky is making the police misreport homicides as suicides so he can gyp the beneficiaries of the victim's life insurance.


Yeah, that's definitely true. Note this quote from the piece:

'The implications of this research are rather uncomfortable for all sides. It gives supporters of the welfare state reasons to oppose diversity, while offering welfare skeptics a basis for favoring more immigration and mixed populations. The less that “community solidarity” is obvious in demographics, the less people are willing to support political institutions that take from some and give to others.'

Libertarians want immigration because they believe it will destroy the basis for the welfare state, which they hate.

Welfare capitalism is unsustainable, though.

Well, I'd say you're partly right. According to this research, we have a natural proclivity to see in-groups and out-groups, 'us' and 'them'. During early childhood, we figure out the relevant differences in society and what our in-group is. We cling to the most important differences. So, in India, the country would be split along sectarian lines; whereas in secular Europe it's split along ethnic lines.

By the way, you can't just claim things without backing it up, dude. Just saying 'it's not nature, it's nurture' just doesn't prove anything.

Okay so in response I would like to refer to the article by mr. Deng again.

'Today, virtually every African conflict has some ethno-regional dimension to it. Even those conflicts that may appear to be free of ethnic concerns involve factions and alliances built around ethnic loyalties. Analysts have tended to have one of two views of the role of ethnicity in these conflicts. Some see ethnicity as a source of conflict; others see it as a tool used by political entrepreneurs to promote their ambitions. In reality, it is both. Ethnicity, especially when combined with territorial identity, is a reality that exists independently of political maneuvers. To argue that ethnic groups are unwitting tools of political manipulation is to underestimate a fundamental social reality. On the other hand, ethnicity is clearly a resource for political manipulation and entrepreneurship.'

'Sudan offers an extreme example. The dominant North, a hybrid of Arab and African racial, cultural, and religious elements, is trying to resolve its identity crisis by being more Arab and Islamic than its prototypes. Worse, this distorted self-perception, heightened by the agendas of political elites, is projected as the framework for unifying and integrating the country, generating a devastating zero-sum conflict between the Arab-Muslim North and the indigenously African South, whose modern leadership is predominantly Christian.'

I think that in Tanzania the ruling party holds party simply by claiming that the other parties are 'ethnicized' in what they want. So throughout multi-ethnic Africa (excepting mono-ethnic Botswana which, according to mr. Deng, functions well), ethnic divisions both exist and are felt and are exploited by politicians. I'd say that, if they is no difference that is, consciously or unconsciously, registered by the brain (as the research above would show), it can be exploited and worsened by politicians.

But guess what? We live in a democracy. So to capitalize on this unease, politicians will stoke it. It's like a law of nature in multi-ethnicized societies. Their weaknesses will be exploited.

Lol, do you think I'd be on leftypol as a succdem?

derp. Holds party should be *holds power


Rolled 1, 4, 1, 5, 6 + 1 = 18 (5d6)
Soy and probiotics = Self-inflicted violence
Music Mindcontrol = Americas crime rate

Trannies have higher suicide rates too.
Go figure

Ok, well you seriously have to wonder what the hell kind of democracy it is has mostly had the same political party in power for decades.

Japan is so bad they'd rather emigrate to Brazil than stay in Japan.

japanese can't even fuck, do you think they have the guts to kill eachother OP?

Killing people is simpler than obtaining the social skills and income to get laid without directly paying.

That's not what having a keen sense for exploitation means

The study also says: "The first thing to understand is that the “in-group” and “out-group” distinctions that we talked about before, that define “us” and “them,” are highly malleable." Which was exactly my point: it's not hard-wired. The study even suggests that: "Familiarity breeds liking. The more often and consistently people experience one another through inter-group contact, the less likely they are to be influenced by stereotypes and prejudices." The problem isn't ethnic diversity itself, but the social dynamics (like segregation) interacting with that diversity.