Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

A

Well, that would have been up to the Grand Jury, but if he better job...that is a great regret. About that,

[ocr errors]

at the Interpreter's job was not the best possible to the states and testify to, certainly.

ine Prosecutor, while hearing your various opinions, 2. Sasagawa, still went ahead with the prosecution... Α Yes, I wrote many things in the report but I don't know whether he ignored, studied, showed to others or did what with it; however, I can testify that I wrote out a detailed report with comments and did the translations, and submitted it to the Prosecutor.

Q Well, Mr. Sasagawa, thank you for taking so much time out today. As to what you have told us today, you did tell us the truth?

A

Yes, as far as I know, everything is the truth.

Q Then, will you please swear that it is the truth?

[blocks in formation]

Q

A

I am sorry to put you to trouble, but will you please say what you have also written in your letter and statement, that you swear that your statements are true, and if so, will you kindly say that out loud?

Concerning this content?

Q Yes, what we have recorded on tape today.

A

All right. I swear that the conversation held up to this time is true as far as I remember.

Q Thank you very much.

I swear that the foregoing questions and answers which I reviewed here are true and correct to the best of my knowledge as long as they conform to the tapes, without compulsion from anyone.

September 12, 1984

Tokyo Japan

Eisuke Sasagawa

[blocks in formation]

ON THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION OF MR. KAMIYAMA'S

CONDUCT IN CONNECTION WITH SUSPECTED VIOLATION OF

TAX LAWS

Japan and the United States are neighboring nations separated by the great Pacific Ocean from each other. In spite of this distance, these two nations have greatly strengthened their mutual ties over the years.

They maintain close political, economic, and

social relations.

However, in spite of the fact

that these two nations are free, democratic, highly industrialized, and wealthy societies, i.e., in spite of these obvious similarities, they have had distinctively different historical pasts, giving rise to two sets of behavioral patterns, as well as two sets of emotions toward what constitutes justice. Separating these two nations, therefore, is not only the Pacific Ocean, but also the socio-cultural peculiarities such as linguistic difference, which separates them apart sometimes even more than the ocean. Particularly in the historical respect, needless

to say, the system and procedures governing criminal trials are also differently developed

in accordance with each nation's particular history,
social customs, politics, economy, and culture, and
as such they bear the marks of the country in which
they evolved. Thus, we have today two significantly
different trial systems in Japan and the United States.
In fact, the comparison of the two will show a
contrasting difference as to the underlying principles
and the prevailing structures.

This case
ase involving Mr. Kamiyama is one salient

example of such difference.

Mr. Kamiyama was subjected to a Grand Jury investigation which lasted for three days on July 9th, 16th, and 21st of 1981. This very investigation was the beginning in retrospect of the proceedings of this case.

Upon examining Mr. Kamiyama's testimony made before the Grand Jury, we have encountered an astonishing state of affairs. The pathetic lack of interpreting ability and the dreadful incompetence of the interpreter who was selected and appointed by the State on behalf of Mr. Kamiyama have produced a communication gap between Mr. Kamiyama's testimony and the prosecutor's response as well as between the prosecutor's questions and Mr. Kamiyama's answers, the process of which can only be adequately described as a "tragic comedy."

It is something too far beyond being merely an "inaccurate" or "inappropriate" interpretation, and the Japanese spoken by this interpreter is in fact often found to be incomprehensible. However, it is with serious regret to note that neither the prosecution nor the court, nor especially the members of the Grand Jury, without any Japanese language facility, took timely notice of this irregular state of affairs caused by the malperformance of the court-appointed interpreter.

Even though Mr. Kamiyama has from time to time responded by saying "Yes" or "Wakarimashita" (understood), this often does not mean that he understood the meaning of what he was told. In fact, it is a widely recognized fact that there are many occasions in which this expression is used among the Japanese, or for that matter among Orientals, as a mere expres

sion of courtesy, deference, and decorum when talking

to a man of higher social status or superior

authority.

Even though it is obviously possible to single out a large number of specific instances of extremely poor performance both in linguistic interpretation and in the use of proper Japanese words, idioms, and expressions, what is especially important here is the fact that the testimony given and the proceedings instituted through such an incompetent interpreter did not constitute a fair trial for Mr. Kamiyama. Indeed, it was nothing but an outright denial of a fair trial to a citizen. Moreover, this should not be taken merely as a violation of due process. Beyond a merely technical violation, the tragic fact should be remembered that Mr. Kamiyama has been prosecuted on account of perjury alleged on the basis of this Grand Jury testimony, and is now about to be condemned to a federal prison.

The Japanese language can never be said to be an easy one. It has an intricate system of honorifics, which demands delicate shades of expressional differences depending on who is talking, or is being talked to. The Japanese language is also often said to be a language loaded with situational and emotional expressions. All these characteristics depicted by analysts, however, do not at all mean it is imperfect as a verbal means of expressing one's message. On the contrary, Japanese is a lan

guage which can provide a fully adequate verbal means with which one can correctly communicate with all others. If, therefore, the interpreter assigned

« AnteriorContinuar »