Talk:Law of Japan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Non-encyclopedic contents

Regrettably, this article seems to be violating at least two of the three core content policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research.

This article lacks citing of reliable sources to support the points. Some parts seem to be non-neutral, sounding like essays or criticisms possibly based on personal prejudice or bias.

We editors are welcome to be bold but also expected to be careful in editing articles. (See Wikipedia:Be bold.) Probably the writers wrote such questionable parts (as I list below) with no maliciousness, I say; however, these parts seem not good as encyclopedia contents.

--Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

e.g.:

Subsection "Torts":

There must be no statistical data (at least of official) showing how many individuals choose not to sue as a result of a specific factor. If one gives up filing a civil lawsuit, it cannot be counted precisely.

--Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph in Section "Criminal law":

No evidence is provided to support any of ALMOST ALL are... / Prosecutors TEND... / such confessions OFTEN... / it is GENERALLY not.... The capitalized expressions to mean high frequency may be groundless.

Whether these are true or not, such situations don't necessarily mean uniqueness of the prosecutorial system.

--Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Subsection "Administrative guidance": This part is digressing from the subject: Law system of Japan. Saying as if it were a bad custom (characteristic of Japan), this part handles administrative guidance only negatively, missing the fact that such governmental actions can often play roles for the public interests of people.

--Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Common among the three parts:

With useless simple comparison, these parts indicate or imply as if Japan were relatively strange as to judicature or governmental administration.

--Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Judicial precedents

Why not mention about the rather interesting influence/effect of the 判例 or the judicial precedent? --Unsigned comment posted by 222.10.252.224 at 22:57, 24 November 2005.