"Sufficient to Suppress Resistance": How Japan's Top Court Defined Robbery in 1948

What is the precise line that separates the grave crime of robbery from the lesser offenses of extortion or theft? Is it the weapon used? The words spoken? Or is it the victim's state of mind? Imagine a person is threatened with a weapon and, overcome with fear, hands over their wallet. To be convicted of robbery, must prosecutors prove that the victim was so terrified that their will was "completely suppressed"? Or is it enough that the threat was simply frightening?

This fundamental question was answered in a foundational ruling by the Supreme Court of Japan on November 18, 1948. The case, involving a late-night home invasion by armed assailants, established the definitive standard for the crime of robbery in post-war Japan. The Court's decision clarified two crucial points: the necessary degree of violence or threats, and the causal link required between that violence and the taking of property. The standard it set, that the violence must be "sufficient to suppress the victim's resistance," remains the law today.

The Facts: A Late-Night Home Invasion

The case involved three men, defendants X, Y, and Z, who conspired to rob a watch merchant, A. At around 1:00 AM, they broke into A's home. Inside, Y and Z brandished sickles (kusakama), while X brandished a knife, pointing them at the victims. They shouted commands like, "Be quiet!" and "Give us the money!"

The court record states that this "threatened" and "intimidated" (ifu sase) the victims, who then handed over cash and more than 40 valuable items, including wristwatches, pocket watches, and lighters.

The defendants were convicted of robbery. On appeal, their defense lawyer argued that the conviction was improper. He contended that the crime of robbery requires violence or threats so severe that they "absolutely suppress the victim's freedom of mind and body." Since the victims in this case were merely "intimidated" and not completely subdued, he argued, the defendants should have been convicted of the lesser crime of extortion, not robbery.

The First Principle: Defining the Violence Required for Robbery

The Supreme Court rejected the defense's argument and upheld the robbery conviction. In doing so, it articulated the first of its two key principles. The Court established that the violence or threats used in a robbery must be "sufficient to suppress the victim's resistance according to generally accepted social standards."

This standard serves to distinguish robbery from other crimes.

• Extortion: Involves threats that, while frightening, do not rise to the level of suppressing resistance. The victim still makes a choice, albeit a coerced one, to hand over property.
• Theft with Force: Involves physical force (like in a purse-snatching) that is primarily directed at the object itself, not at overcoming the victim's will through violence.

The "suppression of resistance" standard is not judged in a vacuum. The commentary on this case clarifies that courts must perform a holistic assessment of all the circumstances to determine if the standard is met. These factors include:

• The nature of the violence or threats (e.g., the type of weapons used, the number of attackers).
• The surrounding context (e.g., the time of day, the location being a private home vs. a public street).
• The characteristics of the parties involved (e.g., age, sex, and physical build of the perpetrators and victims).

In this case, the combination of multiple intruders, armed with lethal weapons, breaking into a home late at night was easily found to meet this high standard. The situation was inherently terrifying and would make resistance seem futile to an ordinary person.

The Second Principle: Causation and the Victim's State of Mind

The second, and perhaps more contentious, principle established by the Court concerns the effect of the violence on the victim. The defense had argued that the victims must be "completely suppressed." The Supreme Court flatly rejected this.

The Court ruled that it is not necessary for the victim's freedom of mind and body to be completely suppressed. As long as the threat was objectively sufficient to suppress resistance, and the victim handed over the property because of that threat, the causal link required for robbery is established. The court found that the defendants' threats caused the victims to be "intimidated," and this was enough to prove the connection between the threat and the taking of property.

Subsequent Supreme Court rulings further clarified this point. In 1949, the Court affirmed that the "suppression of resistance" standard is an objective one; it does not depend on the "subjective state of the specific victim". It does not matter if a particularly brave or stoic victim was not, in fact, fully suppressed. In another 1949 case, the Court held that if the threat is sufficient to suppress resistance, the crime is robbery even if the victim is merely "intimidated" and hands over the property.

In practice, this means prosecutors must prove that the defendant's actions were objectively sufficient to overpower a person's will to resist. They do not need to prove that the victim was psychologically or physically paralyzed.

The Great Debate: The Court vs. The Scholars on "Actual Suppression"

While the Supreme Court's position has remained consistent for over 75 years, it has been the subject of a long-standing debate with the majority of legal scholars in Japan.

• The Court's View: The crime of robbery is completed if the means used are sufficient to suppress resistance and cause the taking. The actual psychological result in the victim (e.g., feeling "intimidated" versus feeling "completely suppressed") is not a required element of the crime. The focus is on the dangerousness of the perpetrator's conduct.
• The Prevailing Scholarly View: Many scholars argue that the actual suppression of the victim's resistance is a required element for a completed robbery. In their view, if the perpetrator uses threats sufficient to suppress resistance, but the victim is not actually suppressed and hands over property out of fear, the crime is an attempted robbery and a completed extortion.

While this distinction seems technical, it goes to the heart of what defines the crime of robbery. The Court's approach focuses on the inherent dangerousness of the perpetrator's act, while the scholarly approach focuses on the actual result achieved upon the victim's will.

It is worth noting, however, that the practical difference between these two views is often limited. In cases where a victim successfully fights back and no property is taken, both views agree the crime is attempted robbery. And in tragic cases where the victim is injured or killed during the struggle, the crime becomes robbery resulting in injury or death, regardless of whether resistance was fully suppressed before the property was taken. The main point of divergence is in the specific scenario where a victim, faced with an overwhelming threat, hands over property while still possessing some degree of mental fortitude.

Conclusion: The Enduring Legacy of the 1948 Standard

The 1948 Supreme Court decision remains a foundational pillar of Japanese criminal law. It established the clear and enduring standard that defines robbery not by the victim's subjective experience, but by the objective power of the perpetrator's actions. By defining the required violence as that which is "sufficient to suppress resistance according to generally accepted social standards," and by clarifying that the victim need not be completely subdued, the Court created a pragmatic and robust framework for prosecuting one of society's most feared crimes. This standard, which places the legal focus squarely on the dangerousness of the perpetrator's conduct, has been the consistent law in Japan for generations, even as it continues to fuel academic debate.