What This Theme Explores
Justice and the Law in Confessions probes the gap between the state’s impersonal procedures and the visceral human hunger for proportionate redress. It asks whether a system built to rehabilitate can satisfy grief that demands moral recognition—and what fills the void when it cannot. Through competing narrators, the novel tests the legitimacy of legal authority against individualized vengeance, tracing how “justice” slips into cruelty when no neutral arbiter is trusted. It also confronts the paradox of juvenile crime: if immaturity lessens culpability, why does the harm feel no less irrevocable to the victim?
How It Develops
The novel’s engine is the perceived failure of Japan’s Juvenile Law after the murder of Manami Moriguchi. In the opening perspective of Yūko Moriguchi in Chapter 1, the classroom becomes a courtroom. Rejecting a legal process she believes will “coddle” minors, Yūko crafts a punishment designed not merely to sanction but to educate through dread and conscience. Her method—psychological, intimate, public—reclaims moral authorship that the state, in her view, forfeits.
The narrative then shifts to Chapter 2, where Mizuki Kitahara watches the students imitate Yūko’s private tribunal. Their “justice” metastasizes into a points-based spectacle: a crowd that mistakes cruelty for moral clarity. What begins as righteous punishment curdles into domination, showing how swiftly communal judgment, untethered from due process, becomes license for harm.
In the section corresponding to Chapter 3, Naoki’s Mother recasts the law as an enemy of the family. Protectiveness eclipses truth: she evades authorities, isolates her son, and treats accountability as a threat. Here the law is neither vindicator nor healer; it is a force to be outwitted, and “justice” is reduced to preservation of one’s own.
From Naoki Shitamura in Chapter 4, the law suddenly appears as refuge. Tormented, Naoki longs for arrest—the structure of official punishment as a path to atonement. Yet his mother’s “justice” blocks the very remedy he seeks, dramatizing how private interests can smother the law’s potential to restore moral order.
In Chapters 5 and 6, Shūya Watanabe declares himself beyond ordinary ethics, treating law as a construct for the unexceptional. Yūko’s final act of vengeance answers his arrogance with a punishment as personal as it is annihilating—meticulous, theatrical, and entirely extra-legal. By the end, the novel has braided together legal insufficiency, vigilante precision, and nihilistic exceptionalism to expose how easily the pursuit of “true justice” mutates into the mirror image of the crime.
Key Examples
The novel grounds its argument in scenes where legal ideals collide with private judgment.
-
Yūko’s refusal to invoke the Juvenile Law: In her first address to the class, Yūko catalogs the law’s leniencies toward minors and concludes that its outcomes cannot speak to the gravity of her loss. By withholding the case from police, she substitutes a punishment aimed at moral comprehension rather than legal disposition.
“You all know something about the Juvenile Law, don’t you? The law was written with the idea that young people are still immature and in the process of becoming adults... That Lunacy girl will spend a few years in a juvenile facility somewhere, perhaps write an apology of some sort, and then be released back into society knowing she literally got away with murder.”
-
The students’ “You be the Judge!” witch hunt: A crowd-sourced scoring system turns punishment into sport, with the class performing justice for points and status. The triviality of the game format exposes how righteous anger, unmediated by law, invites performance, cruelty, and social control.
“But one day we all got the same text on our phones: ‘You be the Judge! Collect points for every blow you strike against Shūya the Killer!’”
-
Naoki’s plea for legal sanction: After confessing, Naoki’s wish to be arrested reframes the law not as an adversary but as a mechanism that could contain and make legible his guilt. His thwarted attempt to surrender shows the law’s unrealized capacity for moral acknowledgment when private “justice” intervenes.
“‘I wanted to get arrested,’ he said, his voice totally empty of emotion.”
-
Shūya’s manifesto of exceptionalism: By redefining crime as amoral innovation, Shūya disqualifies himself from the community the law exists to protect. His worldview makes him immune to shame and therefore unreachable by rehabilitative logic, pushing Yūko toward a punitive grammar the law cannot authorize.
“I understand why murder is considered a crime. But I don’t necessarily understand why it’s evil per se... ‘Extraordinary people have the right to violate conventional morals in order to bring something new into the world.’”
Character Connections
Yūko Moriguchi embodies vigilante authorship. Convinced that codified punishment cannot calibrate meaning to harm, she stages sanctions that target the psyche: fear, guilt, and recognition. Her method seeks not deterrence but understanding—yet in engineering empathy through terror, she risks reproducing the very logic she condemns: transforming people into instruments for a moral lesson.
Shūya Watanabe personifies contempt for law’s social contract. Seeing rules as scaffolding for “idiots,” he locates value in transgression itself. Because he rejects the premise of shared norms, he cannot be reconciled to a legal system that relies on the offender’s capacity for acknowledgment—and so becomes the ideal (and terrifying) audience for Yūko’s bespoke vengeance.
The students reveal how collective justice decays without due process. Their campaign, legitimized by moral outrage, quickly rewards spectacle over truth and complicity over courage. As peers earn status by cruelty, “justice” becomes a currency, proving how fragile fairness is when adjudication migrates from institutions to crowds.
Naoki’s Mother refracts justice through the lens of kinship. Her devotion rewrites culpability as a bureaucratic hazard to be avoided, and in shielding her son she deepens his isolation and psychosis. The novel shows how partiality—however loving—can be more corrosive to justice than overt malice.
Naoki Shitamura exposes the paradox that those most in need of law’s structure may be denied it by those closest to them. His desire for formal punishment gestures toward the law’s reparative promise: to translate raw guilt into recognized accountability. The refusal he faces underscores how private “mercy” can prolong harm.
Symbolic Elements
The Juvenile Law functions as a symbol of institutional restraint—rehabilitation over retribution. Its repeated invocation measures the widening gulf between what the law can offer (process, proportionality) and what victims demand (recognition, equivalence), illuminating the vacuum that vigilantism rushes to fill.
Milk, associated with nurture and innocence, becomes Yūko’s vehicle for retaliation. By contaminating—or claiming to contaminate—it, she stains the emblem of childhood purity, signaling that the moral order protecting children has been inverted: youth no longer guarantees innocence.
The classroom, ordinarily governed by rules and learning, is repurposed as tribunal and arena. First it hosts Yūko’s “confession,” then the students’ mob justice, dramatizing how institutions fail when authority abdicates and spectatorship replaces instruction.
Contemporary Relevance
Confessions resonates wherever societies debate how to respond to grievous harm by minors. The book captures anxieties about juvenile justice—rehabilitation versus retribution—and anticipates “trial by social media,” where performative outrage usurps procedure and proportion. It also voices a persistent grievance that victims’ needs for acknowledgment and moral balance are sidelined by defendants’ rights, warning that when formal systems cannot communicate meaning, communities will improvise punishments that are swifter, crueler, and less just.
Essential Quote
“You all know something about the Juvenile Law, don’t you? The law was written with the idea that young people are still immature and in the process of becoming adults...”
This statement frames the novel’s central indictment: a system calibrated for development may misfire in the face of irreparable harm. By foregrounding the tension between rehabilitation and retribution, the line justifies Yūko’s refusal to defer to the state—and prefigures the ethical collapse that follows when individuals reclaim the power to punish.