Warning: the article contains descriptions of rape, murder, kidnapping, abuse.

 

I’m in bed scrolling TikTok, waiting to feel sleepy, when I come across another video about the bear. The following dilemma is posed; if you (a woman) were in the woods alone, would you prefer to come across a bear or an unknown man? Women have been choosing the bear and men have been offended by it; nothing new. I click on the video's comments out of habit, and something piques my interest. The comment is simple, just a name: Junko Furuta. I consider myself pretty well-versed in true crime and so my failure to recognise the name leads me to open up a new Safari tab.

 

Wikipedia does not let on that the details of this case are murky. The fact that the case occurred in the late 80s doesn’t help and much of the information has had to be translated into English. The bones of the case are generally the same though: Junko, a 17-year-old Japanese school girl was on the way home from her part-time job when a group of boys orchestrated a kidnapping and held her in one of their homes for 44 days, relentlessly bullying and raping her, until eventually she died from injuries. At this time, the defendants’ identities were protected by law. As such, they were known as A, B, C and D. It was not until a journalist from the controversial Shūkan Bunshun magazine (known for pulling justice-fuelled stunts like this) leaked their names, that the boys’ identities became public. Junko’s name was public from the beginning; does that not say everything? The boys, aged between 16 and 18, then hid her body in a concrete slab. She was not found (nor was she even looked for) until one of the boys confessed to her murder when being questioned about a separate gang rape. After a month of captivity, Junko’s body had started omitting an odour due to her malnourishment and infected wounds. Thus, she was no longer the prime candidate for the defendants to rape. Whilst Junko lay naked on a mattress, A and B abducted a second woman. They raped her before letting her go, demonstrating nothing but a violent, devastating entitlement to women’s bodies over and over. I can’t help but think of French woman Gisèle Pelicot, whose husband drugged her and 72 different men to rape her whilst he filmed it over nine years.

 

Reading about Junko makes me feel ill, more than any case has before. It isn’t the details of the harrowing ordeal that strike me, it is the fact that only 4 boys were sentenced (despite over 30 sets of DNA being found on her body) and that the sentences for three of the boys ranged from a measly 5 to 10 years. Unlike Australia, whose age of criminal responsibility is currently 10 to 14 years, Japan’s Juveniles Act at the time defined a juvenile as a person under 20 years of age. The act promotes the “healthy upbringing in juveniles”, a point referenced many times throughout the sentencing at Tokyo District Court and again at the Tokyo High Court, after all four boys appealed. That’s right; after perpetuating that level of sustained violence and, ultimately murder, the defendants felt that even a 3-year sentence was too long. No one was concerned about the healthy upbringing of Junko; the police were alerted twice to her presence during her captivity, but they failed to go past the front door of C’s home. The case may have been 30 years ago, but it strongly reminds me of the doctor who told Gisèle she had dementia.

 

The judgement from 1989 (the original trial), despite being poorly translated into English, provides a provocative insight into the courtroom. The trial was held in the Toyko District Court and would have been presided over by three judges, as is Japanese custom for felony cases. The defendants would have sat at the back of the courtroom facing the judges, and the lawyers facing the centre of the room by sitting on either side. The document goes into depth about the personal histories of the four boys and how their parents had failed them.

 

The judgements on the issue provide us with the most information about what may or may not have gone down during the trial. I will reconstruct what I consider the notable parts for you: B and C’s lawyers argued fiercely that the two boys were not involved in the act of kidnapping at all, even though it was agreed that Junko would be held at C’s house. Defendant B allegedly had no idea of the kidnapping until he opened the door to C’s home. Both claims were disproven by E (C’s older brother), who confirmed that all 4 four boys conspired and planned the attack. Interestingly, E was not convicted at all, even though Junko was kept at his house, he was often left in charge of Junko, and he helped hide her body. It was thought that over 100 people knew of Junko’s abduction and, again, I am reminded of Gisèle. How many other men, who have not been in such a position, would do the same?

 

In regard to her death, B and C asserted that they thought Junko was faking seizures, and as such became angry at her. This prompted their final attack. These excuses were facilitated by the questioning of their lawyers. The lawyers went on to argue that, because they didn’t understand that Junko could die from her injuries, they were not culpable for her death. A poured lighter fluid on her and set her on fire after a long beating from all of the defendants. But no, he didn’t think she could die. Three of the boys, B, C and D, all argued that defendant A was the ringleader of the group and the real culprit of the crimes. D’s lawyers stated that D was “prone to following others”.

 

An appeal to a decision made by a District Court that goes to the High Court is called a kōso. In Japan, a High Court is set up similarly to a District Court. The following was alluded to by court transcripts:

 



Defendant A appealed citing his organic brain defect, however, the court ruled that the defendant's abuse of paint thinner had a major impact on A’s brain causing damage. The second judgement also stated that the 50 million yen donated by A’s parents provided no reason to reduce his sentence. 



 



Defendant B appealed by saying that he was under the influence of A, despite his violently attacking her without A being present. His was the only sentence not lengthened. Further searches on Reddit confirm that Junko’s grave was moved to Texas after B’s mother desecrated her grave in an act of revenge for “destroying [her] sons’ life”. 



 



The original judgement stated that C made the decision to keep Junko at his home. C appealed this decision, but the new judges’ opinions did not differ. (If at this point you are wondering how the defendants kept Junko captive in C’s bedroom whilst his parents were home, all I can tell you is that the parents claimed in court that they were afraid of their son and so did not report the screaming.) As reported in the second judgement, C was “merely drawn into the atmosphere of collective violence”. C’s appeal was dismissed.



 



The judgement stated that D’s appeal was also dismissed because his actions during the first trial demonstrated that he had shown “no sign of remorse”.



 

Ultimately, the High Court decided that A, C and D needed harsher sentences. Not by much though, an extra two or three years for each. Three of the four defendants have reoffended since being released from jail. Four rapists, murderers and torturers now walk free, never mind the countless others complicit in Junko’s torment.

 

So little has changed after 30 years. In Australia, 1 in 5 women have experienced sexual violence (and that’s only after age 15). I am scared. I am scared for my friends. I am scared for the little 8-year-old girl I babysit. I am scared of my dad’s friends. I am scared of the older man living across the street, and the boy that hands me my lunch every day at the bakery. I am scared of the men I sit next to on the train. And I would choose the bear every single damn time.