Under no circumstances am I claiming that Japan has an acceptable justice system, or that it is no worse than the US. I do claim that using “the first world” as a standard of justice is a flawed argument.

I think we can argue that Japan’s justice system is flawed, without introducing the claim that the first world has a worthy standard of justice.

If we do, I think it’s fair game to point out that the first-world has problems of its own, and give an example. In another reply, I also take Canada to task.

I am not claiming that because I consider argument-by-comparison-to-first-world-justice flawed, therefore the argument that Japan has unacceptably poor justice is flawed.

The remainder of the argument seems persuasive to me.

I meant first [world] standards in the sense of the elements I listed: due process, right to an attorney, presumption of innocence, right to bail, independent judiciary, and such. Not all first world countries excel at all of them, but Japan does not really have any of them.

Immigration is a different animal than criminal justice for various historical or policy reasons. Like many countries, Japan has its problems there too even with minuscule numbers of illegal immigrants as compared to the US or EU.

I certainly accept that every other first-world country claims to have these to one degree or another, and that for most of my lifetime, considered exceptions to these practices to be aberrations.

To the degree that we are talking about aspirations, I accept your suggestion.