Defendant: Ikeda, Shohei, Civilian Guard, Tanagawa POW Camp, Osaka Area,
Honshu, Japan and Tsuruga POW Camp
Docket No./ Date: 122/ May 12 - 16, 1947, Yokohama, Japan
Charge: Violation of the laws and customs of war: 1. Did willfully and
unlawfully mistreat and abuse POWs (spec 4, 6, 9, 10) 2. Did willfullly
and unlawfully mistreat, torture, and abuse POW (spec 7, 16) 3. Did willfully
and unlawfully mistreat POWs (spec 13)
Specifications: beating using among others cartridge belt, stick, fists,
club, shovel; kicking; compelling POW to hold a large rock over his head
for 15 minutes; compelling POW to hold railroad iron over his head;
Verdict: 15 years CHL
Reviewing Authority's Recommendations: Accused beat POWs "so often
and so severely that his superior…required him to sign a statement
promising not to again beat PWs on penalty of death to himself."
Accused beat (sometimes knocking down and knocking unconscious) mistreated
and tortured POWs for no reason at all or for minor supposed violations
(complaining about the small amount of food, being unable to do the assigned
work, returning late from the restroom, not holding formation at the required
time, having contraband items in quarters)
Reviewing Authority: Accused denied ever signing the statement introduced
by the prosecution. Accused admitted to striking POWs but not to the degree
and the scope of the beatings and mistreatments (specifications 4, 6,
7, 10); none of these required treatment or hospitalization and none of
these were knocked to the ground. He admitted that in the case of the
POW mentioned in specification 9, the POW had to go to the hospital. He
was reprimanded, however, for this action. AS to specification 13 and
16, the accused denied the specifications totally and did not remember
the PWs or the incidents mentioned.
Prosecution Arguments: While most of the affidavits only give nicknames
or give a name phonetically similar, the reviewer found that it was clear
from all the evidence that those affidavits were referring to the accused.
The accused did admit to being involved in the incidents mentioned in
5 of the specifications of which he was found guilty, although he minimized
his actions. The reviewer found for the prosecution in terms of the scope.
Reviewer found that the "established facts well warrant a prison
sentence of fifteen years."
Defense Arguments: J. G. Lackey, Reviewer
Judge Advocate's Recommendations: (No Comments Made)
