Talk:Penal Code of Japan

Unclear timeline

“However, it is most influenced by American law due to the occupation after World War II.”

If the Penal Code was passed in 1907, this seems unlikely. If it is referring to changes made in the code, then those should be discussed but a section discussing the influences of the original code should be included. 172.59.137.45 (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Content from 刑法 not 刑法 (日本)

This article was expanded significantly with translated content, however the content was translated from the general article on criminal law, 刑法, not from 刑法 (日本) which is specifically about the Penal Code law in Japan. I will be deleting this content as it does not belong in this article and potentially replacing it with translated content from 刑法 (日本). Please let me know if there are any objections. Tiny edit to add: this is why there are so many contradictions. The content was never about this law.Erynamrod (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Article is based on a pre-2025 state of the law; and a question about the Part II table

Following on from Erynamrod's September 2025 note above about the source of the translated content, I would like to raise two points and would welcome views before making any changes.

1. The article describes the law as it stood before the 2022 amendment

The article's main source is the Japanese Law Translation version of the Code, which is marked "Last Version: Act No. 72 of 2017". Since that translation was made, Act No. 67 of 2022 has amended Chapter II of Part I: chōeki (懲役) (imprisonment with work) and kinko (禁錮) (imprisonment without work), which appear as separate punishments in Articles 9, 12 and 13 of the current translation, were consolidated into a single custodial penalty, kōkinkei (拘禁刑). That amendment came into force on 1 June 2025, so the article describes a scheme of punishments that has not been in force for over a year.

I am not aware of an updated official English translation. If anyone knows of an official English rendering of kōkinkei, I would much rather use it; failing that, I would propose citing the current Japanese text via e-Gov together with the promulgated amending act, and rendering the term descriptively on first use.

A related point: Chapter II appears in the Part I structure table as "Punishments" with no indication of what those punishments are, so a reader has no way of telling what changed. It may make more sense to add a short paragraph on the categories of punishment and cover the consolidation there, rather than noting the amendment in isolation.

2. The Part II structure table

The lead states that Part II covers Articles 73 to 264, but the table stops at Chapter V (Article 96-6), which gives the impression that the Code ends there. Erynamrod, is this simply where the replacement work paused? I am happy to help extend it if that would be useful, though I have no strong view on whether the remaining chapters are better as a table or as prose.

Disclosure: I work on media content for a Japanese law firm. I am raising this on the talk page rather than editing directly. This proposal is unrelated to that firm's practice areas or clients. My user page sets out my position.

Ginbisginji (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ginbisginji I removed what content was translated from the incorrect page, reviewed what was translated from the correct page to ensure it was accurate (but please keep in mind I'm not a specialist in legal translation, so I more than welcome any corrections anyone might have), and added the small history section which was based on a few resources I happened to find while I was visiting a university's library.

I didn't really touch the tables at all, to be honest. Whoever was working on the article before me had left a lot in progress. Since I primarily focus on correcting poor translations and am not a legal expert, I left the article at that with the hopes that someone with more knowledge could expand it further.

I'm happy to assist a bit with whatever needs doing, but I don't plan to take the lead, so to speak. I don't have plans to work on it further at the moment unless someone would like my assistance. Erynamrod (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very helpful context — I had wondered whether the tables were deliberately left partial or simply unfinished, and now I know.

For now I'll limit myself to the punishments point, since that is a straightforward factual correction: the article currently describes chōeki and kinko as separate penalties, which has not been the law since 1 June 2025. I'll draft something short and post it here before adding it, so you can check the rendering of the Japanese terms if you have a moment — that's exactly the sort of thing where a second pair of eyes on the translation would help.

On the Part II table, I agree it shouldn't be left as it is, but completing it properly is a larger job than I can commit to right now. I'd rather not start it and leave it half-done a second time. If I do get to it I'll flag it here first.

Thanks again for the reply. Erynamrod Ginbisginji (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll be happy to review once you have that ready. Erynamrod (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Here is the draft I mentioned. I have kept it short and deliberately left the terminology open, since that is where I would most value your view.

Proposed addition, as a new paragraph following the Structure section (or within it, if that reads better):

Until 2025 the Code provided for two separate custodial penalties: chōeki (懲役), confinement with compulsory labour, and kinko (禁錮), confinement without it. Both were abolished on 1 June 2025 and replaced by a single penalty, kōkinkei (拘禁刑). Under Article 12 as amended, a person sentenced to kōkinkei may be required to perform work or to receive guidance, as necessary for their rehabilitation; whether a prisoner works is therefore no longer fixed by the category of sentence. Article 13, which had provided for kinko, was deleted. The Ministry of Justice describes the purpose of the new penalty as achieving effective rehabilitation and smooth reintegration into society through treatment tailored to the characteristics of the individual prisoner.

On terminology. The Japanese Law Translation version the article currently cites is marked "Last Version: Act No. 72 of 2017", so it predates this amendment and renders the old pair as "imprisonment" and "imprisonment without work". I am not aware of an official English rendering of kōkinkei and have avoided coining one above, describing it instead. If you know of an official translation, or think a different phrasing would read better, I would rather follow that.

One other thing. The substance of the amendment is not simply that two penalties became one — it is that whether a prisoner works is now determined by what their rehabilitation requires rather than by the sentence category. I have tried to convey that without overstating it, but I am not confident the wording lands. Any suggestion welcome. Ginbisginji (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

If there's no official English term (and I'm not finding one), we instead can look at scholarly literature in English and see what if anything is generally used, however, I'm not seeing a whole lot for 拘禁刑 other than just a few articles that use simply "imprisonment" in contrast to "imprisonment with labour" (懲役) and "imprisonment without labour" (禁錮). Considering that, I think prioritizing the Japanese term is a valid strategy.

For the second item, I question what "guidance" means in this context, in the "perform work or receive guidance" part. I understand it's a direct translation of 指導 which appears in the source, but in terms of reader understanding, I feel like it doesn't really say a whole lot in English (though is perhaps also intentionally vague in Japanese). It seems like what we would call a rehabilitation or perhaps intervention program, but I'm not sure if those work as a translation of the law. If keeping the term "guidance", could you perhaps find an article that analyses the law and explains what this guidance looks like in practice? (that pdf on the page of your first source does also give some examples of guidance with 改善指導 and 教科指導) Erynamrod (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks — that's a fair challenge, and it turns out the answer is in the statute rather than in the commentary.

The vagueness is real in the Penal Code itself, but shidō there is not free-floating: it is defined by cross-reference to the Act on Penal Detention Facilities and the Treatment of Inmates and Detainees (刑事収容施設及び被収容者等の処遇に関する法律). Article 84 of that Act defines correctional treatment as consisting of work under Article 93 together with the guidance provided for in Articles 103 and 104, which are:

• Article 103, kaizen shidō (改善指導) — guidance to bring inmates to recognise their responsibility for their offence, to maintain physical and mental health, and to acquire the knowledge and habits needed to adapt to life in society. Where an inmate is dependent on drugs or is a member of an organised crime group, particular regard must be had to addressing that circumstance.
• Article 104, kyōka shidō (教科指導) — schooling, equivalent in content to education under the School Education Act, for inmates whose lack of basic academic ability impedes their rehabilitation and reintegration.

So your instinct about rehabilitation or intervention programmes is right for the first and educational provision for the second. I would rather not use either as the translation of shidō itself, since the statutory term covers both, but we can make the content explicit. Revised wording:

Under Article 12 as amended, a person sentenced to kōkinkei may be required to perform work or to receive guidance, as necessary for their rehabilitation; whether a prisoner works is therefore no longer fixed by the category of sentence. The guidance in question is defined by the Act on Penal Detention Facilities and the Treatment of Inmates and Detainees, and comprises programmes addressing the offender's responsibility for the offence and their adjustment to life in society, and schooling for those whose lack of basic academic ability impedes their reintegration.

Does that read better to you? I am open to dropping "guidance" entirely and going straight to the substance if you think the term is more trouble than it is worth. Ginbisginji (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

References