LDP panel approves government proposal to revise retrial system ⁠75%

By Kanako Takahara⁠0%

5/13/2026, 12:32:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Negativity Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 53.9% saturation with 76 hits. Analysis detected 432 faulty-reasoning hits from 141 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠75% (5,465 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 75.00% of the article peer group.

A Liberal Democratic Party panel on Wednesday approved a government proposal to ban prosecutors “in principle” from appealing a retrial order, restricting a right of prosecutors that has been criticized for prolonging procedures for those who may have been wrongly convicted to clear their names. 
The approval paves the way for the revision — a top priority for the government — to be submitted to the current parliamentary session, which runs through July 17. 
For the past 1½ months, LDP lawmakers and the Justice Ministry have been at odds over the revision of the retrial system under the criminal procedural law. 
The ministry, which oversees the Public Prosecutor’s Office, had wanted to retain the prosecutors’ right to appeal, while the LDP — siding with retrial victims — said it should be banned. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.4%The Japan Times: 3.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.7%The Japan Times: 1.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 7.7%The Japan Times: 4.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 1.7%The Japan Times: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.8%The Japan Times: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 53.9%Kanako Takahara: 10.6%The Japan Times: 14.4%Framing Effect53.9%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 1.0%The Japan Times: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 1.5%The Japan Times: 1.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 1.7%The Japan Times: 4.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 2.1%The Japan Times: 3.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 31.9%Kanako Takahara: 9.9%The Japan Times: 11.6%Negativity Bias31.9%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.8%The Japan Times: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.4%The Japan Times: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 53.9%Kanako Takahara: 3.3%The Japan Times: 1.0%In-Group Bias53.9%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 2.0%The Japan Times: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 19.1%Kanako Takahara: 1.9%The Japan Times: 2.2%Recency Bias19.1%This article: 20.6%Kanako Takahara: 0.7%The Japan Times: 0.9%Primacy Effect20.6%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 4.2%The Japan Times: 5.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 19.1%Kanako Takahara: 2.1%The Japan Times: 1.7%False Dilemma19.1%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.7%The Japan Times: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 2.4%The Japan Times: 4.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 1.2%The Japan Times: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 31.9%Kanako Takahara: 3.3%The Japan Times: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion31.9%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.4%The Japan Times: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 1.9%The Japan Times: 4.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.8%The Japan Times: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.1%The Japan Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 2.1%The Japan Times: 1.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 22.0%Kanako Takahara: 2.4%The Japan Times: 3.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)22.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.2%The Japan Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 1.6%The Japan Times: 4.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.8%The Japan Times: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 53.9%Kanako Takahara: 7.1%The Japan Times: 9.0%Biased Writer Voice53.9%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 4.8%The Japan Times: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kanako Takahara: 0.4%The Japan Times: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

141 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers54%attributed speech65writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageLiberal Democratic Party • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageJustice Ministry • 31 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
45 attributed words59% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Liberal Democratic Party: 100.0%100.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.