What are Key Techniques for Eliciting Detailed Statements During Initial Questioning in Japan?

The initial questioning of a suspect in Japan, a procedure often referred to as Benkai Roku-shu (弁解録取), is a critical juncture in any criminal investigation. It's typically the first formal opportunity for investigators to hear the suspect's side of the story regarding the alleged offense. Unlike later, more comprehensive interrogations (torishirabe), the primary aim here is to record the suspect's initial explanation or defense, clarify their fundamental position, and identify the core issues that will shape the subsequent investigation. Mastering the techniques to elicit clear, detailed, and fact-based statements during this stage is paramount for effective and fair criminal procedure.

This article explores key strategies and considerations for investigators conducting this crucial initial questioning, emphasizing the importance of understanding the existing evidence and skillfully guiding the suspect to articulate concrete facts rather than vague evaluations.

The Foundation: Benkai Roku-shu in Procedural Context

While the term Benkai Roku-shu itself might not be explicitly detailed as a standalone chapter in Japan's Code of Criminal Procedure, the spirit of allowing a suspect to explain themselves is deeply embedded. Article 198, Paragraph 1 of the Code stipulates that a prosecutor, public prosecutor's assistant officer, or judicial police official may request the appearance of a suspect and question them, but only after informing the suspect that they are not obliged to make a statement against their will. Crucially, Paragraph 2 of the same article states that the suspect’s statements may be recorded in a written document (chosho). This process of giving the suspect an opportunity to offer their explanation and the subsequent recording of it is what constitutes the Benkai Roku-shu.

Its objectives are clear:

1. To Formally Record the Suspect's Initial Account: This provides an early, documented version of the suspect's defense or explanation.
2. To Clarify the Suspect's Position: It helps investigators understand what aspects of the accusation the suspect admits, denies, or contests.
3. To Identify Key Points of Contention: The information gathered helps pinpoint areas requiring further investigation and evidence gathering.

The written record produced from this initial questioning, the Benkai Roku-shu sho (弁解録取書), can become a significant piece of evidence. Therefore, ensuring the clarity, detail, and factual basis of the statements elicited is not just good practice—it's essential for the integrity of the investigative process.

The Investigator's First Task: Mastering the Evidence Structure

Before even entering the questioning room, the investigator has a critical preparatory task: to thoroughly review and understand all available evidence related to the case. This might include security camera footage, witness testimonies, forensic reports, financial records, or any other objective data. This preliminary analysis is not just about knowing the allegations; it’s about constructing an "evidence structure" in one's mind.

Understanding this structure empowers the investigator to:

• Identify Discrepancies: If the suspect’s account deviates from known facts, the investigator can recognize this immediately.
• Formulate Targeted Questions: Knowledge of the evidence allows for questions that probe specific factual gaps or inconsistencies in the suspect's narrative.
• Assess Plausibility: The investigator can, to some extent, evaluate the credibility of the suspect's claims against the backdrop of objective evidence.

Consider a common scenario: a suspect is apprehended for theft from a convenience store. The store's security cameras captured the entire incident. The suspect, upon initial questioning, claims they had overpaid on a previous transaction and were merely "retrieving" the excess cash they were owed when the clerk was momentarily absent. If the investigator has not reviewed the footage showing the original transaction and the alleged "retrieval," they are questioning in the dark. However, if the investigator knows the footage clearly shows no such overpayment, or that the suspect's actions were surreptitious, their line of questioning during the Benkai Roku-shu can be far more focused and effective in dissecting the suspect's claims.

From Vague Claims to Concrete Facts: Core Questioning Techniques

The central challenge in Benkai Roku-shu is often to move the suspect from making broad, self-serving, or evaluative statements to articulating specific, verifiable facts.

1. Deconstructing Evaluative Language

Suspects may initially offer explanations couched in evaluative terms: "I just got my money back," "It was a misunderstanding," or "I didn't mean any harm." Such statements, while noting the suspect's general stance, lack the factual detail necessary for a meaningful record. The investigator's role is to gently but persistently break these down.

For example, if a suspect in the convenience store theft case says, "I just took back the 10,000 yen I overpaid":

• Ineffective Follow-up: "So, you didn't steal it?" (This is a leading question inviting a simple "yes" or "no" without factual substance.)
• Effective Follow-up (seeking concrete facts):
  • "Can you describe exactly how you 'took back' the 10,000 yen?"
  • "Where was the 10,000 yen note located?"
  • "What actions did you take to retrieve it?"
  • "Was the store clerk present when you took it? Did you speak to them about it?"
  • "You mentioned an overpayment. When did this overpayment occur?"
  • "How much was the original purchase, and how much do you believe you paid?"
  • "How did you realize you had overpaid?"

The goal is to transform a subjective claim ("I got my money back") into a sequence of observable actions and circumstances.

2. The Strategic Use of Open-Ended Questions

While the ultimate aim is specificity, the initial phase of questioning often benefits from open-ended questions. Phrases like, "Can you tell me what happened in your own words?" or "Please explain the situation from your perspective," allow the suspect to present their narrative without immediate constraint. This can reveal their primary line of defense, their understanding of the situation, and potentially, details the investigator was not yet aware of.

Once this initial narrative is provided, the investigator can then deploy more targeted, probing questions based on the information given and its consistency (or lack thereof) with the existing evidence structure.

3. Pinpointing Ambiguities and the Core of the Defense

A successful Benkai Roku-shu doesn't just record a denial or admission; it clarifies the basis of the suspect's position. If a suspect denies intent, the questioning should aim to uncover the specific facts that, in their view, negate that intent. If they admit the act but offer a justification, the factual underpinnings of that justification must be explored.

Returning to the overpayment claim in the convenience store theft:

• "You stated you paid 60,000 yen for a 50,000 yen item. How did you determine you had handed over six 10,000 yen notes?"
• "Did you count them individually before giving them to the clerk?"
• "If you counted six notes and knew the payment was 50,000 yen, why did you proceed to hand over all six notes at that moment?" (This question becomes particularly pertinent if they claim they knew they were overpaying at the time of payment).
• "What steps, if any, did you take immediately after realizing the alleged overpayment, before you took the note from the counter?"

These questions are designed to get the suspect to commit to a detailed sequence of events and perceptions, which can then be meticulously examined for internal consistency and external coherence with other evidence.

4. Maintaining Professionalism and Avoiding Premature Judgment

Even if a suspect's explanation appears highly improbable or directly contradicted by evidence, it is crucial for the investigator to maintain a professional, neutral, and sincere demeanor during the Benkai Roku-shu. The objective is to accurately record the suspect's initial account, however flawed it may seem.

A dismissive or overtly accusatory attitude can be counterproductive. Phrases like "Oh, really?" (「あっそ」) or "That doesn't make any sense!" can shut down communication, make the suspect defensive, and prevent the full articulation of their (albeit perhaps weak) defense. The investigator's task is to listen, probe for factual clarity, and record. The rigorous testing of that account against the evidence often comes later. A calm, respectful approach is more likely to yield a detailed, if ultimately unconvincing, statement than an aggressive one. This is vital because even a demonstrably false but detailed explanation can be more revealing than a terse, uncooperative denial.

Case Study: The Convenience Store "Overpayment" Claim

Let's revisit the convenience store theft scenario to illustrate these techniques in a more structured way.
The Allegation: The suspect stole a 10,000 yen note from the cash register till.
The Suspect's Initial Claim During Benkai Roku-shu: "I didn't steal it. I had paid for a 50,000 yen money transfer earlier, but I mistakenly gave the clerk 60,000 yen. I realized this later. When I saw the clerk step away from the register, I just took back the 10,000 yen I was owed."

Ineffective Questioning Approach (Leading to a Poor Record):
Investigator: "So, are you saying it wasn't theft, but you were just getting your overpayment back?"
Suspect: "Yes, that's right."
Investigator: "And you saw the clerk was busy, so you took it yourself?"
Suspect: "Yes."
Resulting Benkai Roku-shu sho entry: "I did not steal the money. I had previously overpaid by 10,000 yen and merely retrieved this amount from the counter when the clerk was occupied." This record lacks crucial factual detail and fails to explore the inherent implausibilities.

Effective Questioning Approach (Aiming for a Detailed Factual Record):

1. Acknowledge and Open: "I understand the allegation is that you took a 10,000 yen note from the register. Can you please tell me in your own words what happened from your point of view?"
   Suspect provides their initial claim about overpayment and retrieval.
2. Probe the "Overpayment" Element:
   • "You mentioned an overpayment. When exactly did this transaction where you believe you overpaid occur?" (Date, approximate time)
   • "What was the exact amount you were supposed to pay?" (e.g., 50,000 yen for a bill payment)
   • "How much cash do you believe you handed to the clerk for this 50,000 yen payment?" (e.g., "I think I gave six 10,000 yen notes, so 60,000 yen.")
   • "When you handed over the cash, did you count the notes at that moment? How did you arrive at the figure of six notes?"
   • "If you realized you were handing over 60,000 yen for a 50,000 yen payment, did you say anything to the clerk at that point about the discrepancy?"
   • "When did you first realize that you had, in fact, overpaid? Was it immediately, or sometime later?"
   • "If it was later, what made you realize it?"
3. Probe the "Retrieval" Element:
   • "You then said you 'took back' the 10,000 yen. Can you describe where the cash register was located in relation to where you were?"
   • "Where was the 10,000 yen note that you took? Was it on top of the counter, in an open till, or somewhere else?"
   • "What was the clerk doing when you took the note? You mentioned they stepped away – where did they go?"
   • "Did you say anything to the clerk, or attempt to get their attention, before taking the note?"
   • "Why did you choose to take the note yourself rather than waiting for the clerk to return and explaining the situation of the alleged overpayment?"
   • "Were there other customers around at this time?"

This line of questioning forces the suspect to provide a granular, step-by-step account. If, for instance, the suspect claims they knew they handed over six notes for a 50,000 yen payment but said nothing at the time, this raises immediate questions about their credibility and intent, which are now part of their detailed initial statement. If the security footage shows no such earlier transaction or a clear payment of the correct amount, the detailed Benkai Roku-shu highlighting the suspect's specific, contrary claims becomes even more powerful.

The Investigator's Demeanor: Facilitating Disclosure

Throughout the Benkai Roku-shu, the investigator's demeanor is as important as their questions.

• Sincerity and Fairness: While maintaining professional skepticism, the investigator should convey a genuine interest in hearing and understanding the suspect's full explanation. This doesn't mean believing it, but ensuring it is fully articulated.
• Patience: Unraveling a complex or confusing account takes time. Rushing the suspect can lead to incomplete or inaccurate statements.
• Avoiding Confrontation (at this stage): The Benkai Roku-shu is primarily for recording the suspect's version. Direct confrontation with contradictory evidence is usually reserved for subsequent, more detailed interrogations. The initial goal is to get their full story on record.

The Outcome: A Precise and Actionable Benkai Roku-shu sho

A Benkai Roku-shu conducted with these techniques will result in a written record (Benkai Roku-shu sho) that is far more than a cursory denial or admission. It will be a document that:

• Clearly outlines the suspect's specific factual assertions.
• Details the basis of their defense or explanation.
• Highlights potential inconsistencies or areas requiring further investigation.
• Provides a solid foundation for subsequent investigative steps and, if the case proceeds, for trial strategy.

Conclusion: Laying the Groundwork for Justice

Effective initial questioning during Benkai Roku-shu is not merely a procedural formality; it is a foundational element of a thorough and fair criminal investigation in Japan. By meticulously preparing through evidence review, focusing on eliciting concrete factual details rather than evaluative claims, employing a strategic mix of open-ended and probing questions, and maintaining a professional and patient demeanor, investigators can secure initial statements that are clear, comprehensive, and crucial for the subsequent pursuit of justice. This initial encounter, handled skillfully, sets the stage for a more focused, efficient, and ultimately, more just resolution of the case.