It has been reported that the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) has decided to submit proposals for amending the Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure to the Diet when it convenes its 1997 ordinary session. At the moment, six areas including the legalization of wiretapping, and plea bargaining are under consideration. This amendment will be an extensive one, and may raise some difficult issues concerning the protection of human rights. The JCLU has also decided to begin examining the proposals.

Also on the agenda for amendments were proposals for 1) increase the length of sentence for such crimes as extortion made on behalf of a criminal organization, and money laundering; 2) confiscation of profits gained from illegal activities and an additional penalty fine, and 3) witness protection.

The reason for such amendments are several: 1) it is maintained that in order to crack down on organized crime, wiretapping by authorities should be legalized and that plea-bargaining should be introduced; 2) there is general agreement among Summit members that money laundering should be regulated and that profits from illegal activities should be seized. It is reported as well that the Liberal Democratic Party and the New Frontier Party are also positive about the reforms.

These amendments, regardless of their "necessity" will most certainly have a significant effect on our lives. For example, wiretapping is currently permitted in narcotic cases with an inspection warrant, but if it is allowed wholesale, there is a danger that none of our conversations are guaranteed privacy. The daunting effect of generalized wiretapping will affect all citizens. Moreover, the Internet, gaining quickly in popular use, may become an object of wiretapping in context of these amendments.

The introduction of plea-bargaining may also have an effect on our basic human rights. Plea-bargaining is a system wherein an accomplice who ranks lower in a criminal organization is given the opportunity to lighten his sentence by testifying and accusing those who are higher positioned and who truly control the organization. However the accomplice's testimony does not grant him absolute immunity but only conditioned one that he/she will not be indicted for what he/she said during the testimony. In addition, there lies a possibility where the testifying person will be convicted on the basis of other evidence. Also, there is a danger where the right to remain silent will be infringed upon by such measures.

If such critical amendments are to be sent to the Diet's regular session next year, time is limited for the citizenry to scrutinize the proposals. The JCLU board meeting of September 1996 decided to begin a study on this issue immediately and examine the necessity of vocalizing an official position from the standpoint of human rights protection.