Is it reasonable that Hodaka's only punishment in 'Weathering with You' is probation?

Introduction

In the movie 'Weathering with You,' the story concludes with the protagonist, Hodaka Morishima, receiving 'probation' from the family court after a series of incidents he caused in Tokyo. Picking up a gun, firing it at people, resisting the police, and running on train tracks—when these actions are listed together, they seem to qualify as serious crimes. However, in reality, he did not face a criminal trial but was instead placed on probation, which assumes rehabilitation within society.
So, was this disposition a lenient judgment for the sake of the story's convenience? Or was it a reasonable conclusion even when measured against the actual legal system? In this article, we will examine this issue from the perspectives of both the Juvenile Act and the Penal Code to clarify how the family court's judgment in the work is positioned.

The Philosophy of the Juvenile Act: Aiming for Rehabilitation, Not Punishment

Hodaka is a high school student and falls under the category of a 'juvenile' under the Penal Code. When a juvenile commits an incident, they are not subjected to a regular criminal trial but are instead brought before a 'juvenile hearing' in family court. What is judged here is not a 'crime' but 'delinquency,' and the goal is rehabilitation, not punishment. The family court determines the disposition from the following perspectives:
1. The maliciousness of the act
2. The degree of remorse
3. The acceptance system of the family and community
4. The possibility of re-offending
The basic idea of a juvenile hearing is to comprehensively judge these factors and choose the most appropriate disposition. In incidents caused by emotional actions like Hodaka's, it is easy to judge that 'educational support is more effective than punishment,' and it is not unusual for 'probation,' which aims for rehabilitation within society, to be chosen.

Violation of the Firearm and Sword Possession Control Act: Accidental acquisition cannot be called 'intentional possession'

Article 3 of the Firearm and Sword Possession Control Act strictly prohibits the possession of handguns, but for a crime to be established, 'intent to possess' is required. Hodaka merely happened to pick up a handgun dropped by a police officer, and he had no intent to use it or hide it. Even in actual practice, 'intent to possess' is often denied in cases of short-term acquisition or temporary holding, and the case may end with a suspension of prosecution or a protective measure. Therefore, even if Hodaka's gun possession was formally illegal, it is considered an act that is difficult to classify as a crime in substance.

Firing the gun: Attempted murder cannot be established as intent to kill cannot be proven

The scene where Hodaka fires the gun is the most impressive, but for the crime of attempted murder (Articles 199 and 203 of the Penal Code) to be established, 'intent to kill' or 'dolus eventualis' is required. Hodaka did not intend to kill anyone; he acted impulsively to save Hina. As a result, there were no injuries, and he was not aiming at anyone. In such a situation, proving intent to kill is extremely difficult, and in actual investigations, it is highly likely to be treated as 'firing for intimidation' or 'obstruction of justice.' Compared to the intensity of the appearance, it is reasonable for the legal evaluation to be minor.

Obstruction of justice: The degree of assault is light, and it is a light disposition for a first-time offender

Obstruction of justice under Article 95 of the Penal Code is established when assault or intimidation is applied to a public servant. However, Hodaka did not punch or injure the police officer; he only tried to escape being apprehended. In practice, this level of resistance is classified as 'minor assault,' and for a first-time offender, it often ends with a fine or probation. In juvenile cases, motive and remorse are emphasized more than the results of the assault, so Hodaka's actions are evaluated as 'emotional resistance,' and his criminal responsibility is estimated to be light.

Violation of the Railway Business Act: Limited to minor dangerous acts

Hodaka's act of entering the train tracks violates Article 37 of the Railway Business Act, but he did not obstruct the operation of the train, nor was there any damage. In this case, it remains a minor violation at the level of a petty fine (several tens of thousands of yen), and the seriousness of the delinquency is judged to be low under the Juvenile Act. The impact on the entire incident is small and is not a major reason for the disposition.

Comprehensive judgment: The family court's decision in the work is realistically reasonable

When these actions are combined, even if Hodaka's incident looks large socially, it was difficult to satisfy the constituent elements of a serious crime legally. There was no intent for the violation of the Firearm and Sword Possession Control Act, intent to kill could not be proven for attempted murder, the obstruction of justice was minor, and the violation of the Railway Business Act was only at the level of a petty fine. Legally speaking, it was 'a collection of minor delinquencies that look serious at first glance.'
Furthermore, the family court emphasizes the individual's remorse and the family's acceptance system. Hodaka was a first-time offender, his parents' custody was confirmed, and clear remorse was seen after the incident. Under these conditions, it is a natural judgment both legally and practically for the family court to decide that 'rehabilitation within society is appropriate' and to choose probation. Even in actual Japan, there are many cases where the disposition remains probation for first-time offenders with emotional motives and minor results. Therefore, the family court's judgment in 'Weathering with You' was not a special act of leniency but an extremely reasonable disposition in line with the actual operation of juvenile justice.

Summary

Hodaka's probation in 'Weathering with You' is not a cinematic embellishment but a conclusion consistent with the actual legal system.
1. The possession of the gun was accidental and there was no intent.
2. There was no intent to kill in the firing, and attempted murder was not established.
3. Obstruction of justice and violation of the Railway Business Act remained minor delinquencies.
4. Family acceptance and remorse were confirmed, and the prospect of rehabilitation was high.
If these conditions are met, it is extremely realistic for the family court to choose probation. In conclusion, the fact that Hodaka's punishment was limited to probation can be said to be a reasonable and rational judgment in light of the actual operation of the Japanese Juvenile Act.