Japan Weighs GPS Monitoring and Mandatory Treatment for Stalkers After Tokyo Killing

A proposal to turn warnings into earlier protection

Japan's National Police Agency announced on October 15 that it will establish an expert panel to examine GPS monitoring and compulsory treatment or counseling for stalking offenders, following a fatal attack in Tokyo and a record 3,037 prohibition orders issued in 2025.

The eight members are scheduled to hold their first meeting on October 19. Their task is to consider whether Japan should require certain offenders to wear devices that would trigger an alert when they approach a victim, and whether authorities should be able to require attendance at treatment or counseling.

The review follows the March 2026 killing of a 21-year-old woman working at Pokémon Center Mega Tokyo in the Sunshine City shopping complex in Ikebukuro. Her former boyfriend, 26, had already been arrested, fined 800,000 yen and placed under an order prohibiting contact. Police had recommended counseling, which he refused.

The agency will use the panel's report to consider changes to the Anti-Stalking Act and the need for a new legal framework. No implementation date or deadline for completing the report has been announced, although the agency wants the recommendations prepared as soon as possible.

For people facing persistent threats, the practical issue is what happens between the issuing of a prohibition order and an offender's next approach. GPS monitoring would add a way to detect movement toward a victim. Compulsory counseling or treatment would address another part of the problem: offenders who reject the help police recommend.

The killing that prompted the review

The Ikebukuro suspect had been arrested in 2025 on suspicion of stalking his former partner and received a prohibition order in January 2026. After a summary indictment, a simplified criminal procedure, he was fined and released.

Tokyo police arranged for the woman to take refuge ahead of his release and urged the man to receive treatment or counseling. He declined. In March, he stabbed her at the store where she worked. He then stabbed himself and died.

The case brought together several measures already used against stalking: arrest, a financial penalty, an order barring contact, temporary refuge for the victim and a recommendation that the offender seek professional help. The government subsequently called for a new framework to protect victims.

A July meeting of ministers responsible for crime prevention adopted emergency measures covering fraud and stalking. Those measures called for early consideration of GPS monitoring and an examination of compulsory treatment or counseling. The October panel is the next step in that process.

The main events leading to the review are:

• 2025: Police arrested the man suspected of stalking the woman later killed in Ikebukuro.
• January 2026: He received an order under the Anti-Stalking Act prohibiting contact.
• March 2026: The woman was killed at Pokémon Center Mega Tokyo, and the attacker also died.
• July 2026: Ministers adopted emergency measures calling for consideration of GPS monitoring and mandatory treatment or counseling.
• October 15: The National Police Agency announced the expert panel.
• October 19: The panel is scheduled to hold its first meeting.

Who could be required to wear a device?

The National Police Agency has identified offenders subject to prohibition orders as a possible starting point for GPS monitoring. Within that group, the system could be limited to people assessed as posing a particularly high risk.

Another proposal would cover offenders who disobey those orders. The choice matters because it determines when monitoring could begin: after an offender has already breached an order, or earlier when authorities judge the danger sufficiently serious.

A prohibition order is a legal instruction to stop specified conduct, such as following or approaching a victim. A GPS device would add location monitoring to that instruction. Under the proposal, an approach toward the victim could generate an alert, giving the victim or police information they would otherwise lack.

The panel will examine how devices should be worn, how long monitoring should last and who should receive location information. Members must also consider whether a court should review the decision to impose monitoring.

These decisions will shape both the protection offered to victims and the restrictions placed on offenders. A system covering everyone with a prohibition order would reach a larger group than one reserved for people judged especially dangerous. A system triggered only by a breach would begin at a later stage.

What Japan is examining overseas

The National Police Agency points to Spain, Germany and South Korea as countries using electronic monitoring in responses to stalking or domestic violence. Their experience will inform the Japanese review, with particular attention to how authorities detect an offender approaching a victim.

South Korea introduced GPS monitoring for stalking offenders in 2023. Under its system, offenders subject to measures including temporary court orders can be required to wear an electronic ankle device. Police can detect when the monitored person approaches the victim.

The agency says no murder by an offender subject to that monitoring has occurred in South Korea since the system began. The Japanese panel will examine the foreign arrangements as it considers who should be monitored and how alerts should work.

In parts of Germany, courts can order offenders to wear GPS devices. Police detect when a monitored person comes within a specified distance of a victim and can respond. The role of the courts is particularly relevant to Japan's discussion of whether judicial review should be required.

For Japan, the central operational question is how location information would lead to action. The review covers whether police, victims or both should have access to that information. That choice connects the technology directly to the people expected to respond when an alert occurs.

Why treatment is a separate part of the plan

The panel will also consider making treatment or counseling compulsory. The Ikebukuro attacker had refused the counseling police recommended, placing the limits of voluntary participation at the center of the debate.

Japan has pursued psychiatric and psychological approaches to stalking for more than a decade. The National Police Agency's 2017 police white paper says police began studying these approaches in fiscal 2014 and promoted cooperation with local psychiatric institutions from fiscal 2016.

The document describes police receiving advice from psychiatrists and other professionals about how to respond to offenders and whether counseling or treatment is needed. It also records a May 2016 agreement between Ibaraki Prefectural Police and local psychiatric institutions to cooperate on counseling and treatment for stalkers.

The current proposal would change the role of those services. Instead of relying on an offender to accept a recommendation, authorities could potentially require participation. The panel must consider the people covered by such a requirement alongside the proposed scope of GPS monitoring.

The two measures serve different purposes. GPS monitoring would help detect an approach toward a victim. Treatment or counseling would seek to change the behavior that leads to repeated unwanted contact. The review brings them together because protecting a victim can require both an immediate response to danger and work aimed at stopping further stalking.

Privacy and court oversight enter the debate

Continuous access to a person's location can reveal where they live, work and travel. Requiring someone to carry a tracking device would therefore restrict privacy and freedom of movement. Compulsory treatment or counseling would also raise questions about the state's authority to require personal participation.

The panel includes specialists in constitutional law and criminal policy, psychiatric and counseling professionals, and lawyers familiar with victim support. Their work will include examining those restrictions alongside the need to prevent serious violence.

Decisions about duration and access to data are central to that task. Monitoring for a fixed period, deciding whether it should continue and determining who may see location information are separate choices with practical consequences for everyone involved.

Ken Shibata, a family member of the victim killed in a 2012 stalking case in Zushi, Kanagawa Prefecture, is also a panel member. His participation brings the experience of a bereaved family into discussions that will otherwise involve legal rules, medical practice and monitoring technology.

The panel's recommendations will guide the police agency's assessment of whether to revise the Anti-Stalking Act. Legislation would then be needed for any new powers that require a change in the law.

Earlier reforms already widened police powers

Japan's proposed changes build on an earlier revision of the Anti-Stalking Act that took full effect on June 14, 2017. The National Police Agency's white paper describes that reform as a response to conduct that can escalate quickly into serious harm.

The revision expanded the acts covered by the law to include repeatedly sending unwanted messages through social networking services and posting unwanted comments on a victim's personal webpages. It also covered wandering near places such as a victim's home.

Authorities gained a revised injunction system, including emergency injunctions and the removal of a requirement for an advance warning before an injunction. The law also made stalking an offense that prosecutors can pursue without a complaint from the victim and increased penalties.

Victim protection formed another part of the reform. The white paper lists confidentiality, management of personal information, support for accommodation and cooperation with private organizations. It says police had used public funds since fiscal 2015 to pay hotel accommodation costs when victims in dangerous and urgent cases needed temporary refuge.

The new review moves the discussion toward monitoring offenders after orders have been issued and requiring them to engage with professional services. For victims, those proposals concern whether they can receive earlier warning of an approach and whether an offender's refusal of counseling can be addressed through law.

Record orders give the review added urgency

Authorities issued 3,037 prohibition orders under the Anti-Stalking Act in 2025, the highest annual total recorded. That figure gives the panel a concrete measure of how frequently police are already using formal orders to stop stalking behavior.

The eventual scope of GPS monitoring will determine how much of that group could be covered. Limiting devices to offenders assessed as especially dangerous would make the assessment process a key part of the system. Covering people who breach an order would instead make the breach a central trigger.

The next scheduled step is the October 19 meeting. The panel will then develop a report addressing monitoring, treatment and the legal arrangements needed to support them. The police agency will use those recommendations to decide what legislative changes to pursue.

The immediate policy choice is concrete: when a person has been told to stay away, should authorities have the power to track an approach and require participation in treatment or counseling? The Ikebukuro killing has pushed both questions into a formal review.

Key Points

• Japan's National Police Agency announced an eight member panel on October 15, with its first meeting scheduled for October 19.
• The panel will consider GPS monitoring and compulsory treatment or counseling for stalking offenders.
• Possible monitoring targets include particularly dangerous offenders under prohibition orders and people who breach those orders.
• The review follows the March 2026 killing of a woman in Ikebukuro by a former partner who had received a prohibition order and refused counseling.
• Authorities issued a record 3,037 prohibition orders in 2025.
• The panel will examine court oversight, privacy, monitoring duration and access to location data before the agency considers legal changes.