“Not Only Did He Stomp to Death 25 Hamsters, He Filmed It”: A High School Staff Member’s Abnormal Desires and the Ugly World of “Crush Videos”

She stomped on as many as 25 hamsters

“The incident occurred in mid-February of this year at a lodging facility in Takizawa City, Iwate Prefecture… A young woman committed a brutal act: she took 25 hamsters out of their containers one by one, dropped them on the floor, and stomped on them. Furthermore, a man filmed the entire scene with his smartphone and recorded it.”

A police official sighed as he said this, then continued, “There were several short video clips like that, and the crime lasted for several hours in total.”

On July 10, two individuals—Motoki Kimura (36), a staff member at an Iwate Prefectural high school, and a 19-year-old girl identified as A—were arrested and indicted on charges of violating the Animal Welfare Act in connection with the incident described at the beginning.Regarding defendant Kimura, videos found on the storage media revealed that he had killed 30 hamsters in a similar manner in late March; on August 31, he was re-arrested and additionally indicted on charges of violating the Animal Welfare Act, along with a woman other than Ako.In addition to the hamsters, there were many other videos on the storage media involving other animals as well, and authorities are reportedly investigating Kimura for additional offenses.

“It appears that Kimura was the ringleader in both cases. He reportedly lured young women he didn’t know via social media by saying, ‘Let’s kill some hamsters and film it!’ and proceeded to kill and injure the hamsters. His sole pleasure was in tormenting the hamsters and filming the acts. It does not appear there was any sexual relationship with the women,” (ibid.)

On September 24, the first hearing regarding the aforementioned case was held at the Morioka District Court, where Defendant Kimura admitted to the charges. It appears that for Defendant Kimura and his accomplices, the act of “filming the incident” was just as significant as killing the 25 animals.

“If you look online, you’ll see that such interests and preferences exist. There are people who enjoy killing and injuring small animals, and such videos are called ‘crush videos,’” (ibid.)

It is reported that the case came to light after a third party provided information upon discovering that videos of animal abuse had been uploaded to a private account belonging to the defendant Kimura. What kind of videos were posted on that private account…?

A representative of an animal welfare organization—who had received a consultation from the third party who reported the incident to the police—prefaced their remarks by saying, “I cannot discuss the details due to an agreement with that person…,” before adding:

“Generally speaking—and this applies to ‘crush videos’ accounts in general—the content varies widely, ranging from humans crushing inanimate objects or food to live creatures such as small animals and insects. Accounts of this type often operate as pairs: a woman actually performs the crushing, while a man films it.Since this incident was reported, there has been a trend within the ‘crush video’ community of accounts switching to private or voluntarily deleting themselves,”

” Regarding Defendant Kimura’s account, the aforementioned investigative source also explained:

“It is true that Kimura’s account—where videos could be viewed by entering a password—did exist, but it appears to have been banned by the platform operator. Regarding both the first and second incidents, we have not confirmed that the videos were leaked to third parties or sold.”

However, what the prosecution pointed out at the first hearing was Defendant Kimura’s past conduct.

“The prosecution alleged that, for about 10 years, Defendant Kimura had been recruiting women via social media to film ‘crush’ videos in which they were made to stomp on crayfish, insects, and mice, and had sold between 5 and 60 of these videos…” (ibid.)

The defendant’s testimony is scheduled for November 5, and the trial is expected to conclude on that day.

The Reality Behind Crash Videos

We spoke with Attorney Kimitoshi Takemura of Takemura General Law Office, an expert on crash videos, about the current situation and the issues involved. He has previously served as counsel in lawsuits seeking damages for PTSD caused by animal abuse videos and has also been involved in drafting a bill to regulate such videos. (All statements in quotation marks below are from Attorney Takemura.)

What kind of people are fans of crush videos?

“Crush videos—such as those showing women crushing fruit with the narrow heels of high-heeled shoes—are not exactly mainstream in Japan, but they are a common genre. While there may be some overlap with that, there is no doubt that there are people who derive a fetishistic thrill from abusing and crushing living creatures.

“As for why Defendant Kimura abused the hamster and filmed the crush video, we won’t know unless we confirm it with him directly. However, generally speaking, there are four possible reasons: sexual interest, a fascination with animal abuse, commercial purposes, and a desire for validation.”

Does that mean the abuse videos themselves are what’s being sold?

“It seems such videos have been traded routinely since the days of VHS and the like. It’s the same as with porn videos. Nowadays, there are likely business models based on ad revenue tied to view counts and subscriber numbers, as well as paid membership sites.

This case may also have such a commercial aspect. Since crash videos can be sold or traded commercially, much like pornographic videos, there is a reason they are regulated in the United States.”

In the U.S., laws regulating animal abuse videos are limited to footage depicting specific acts of animal cruelty.

But where exactly are these videos being shared in the first place? While it’s not possible to upload such brutal videos directly to popular platforms accessible to the general public, there appear to be loopholes…

“They use workarounds, such as posting a video on a message board accessible only to specific users, redirecting it to a video-hosting site to generate a URL, and then attaching that link to an external site… That way, they can post the link even on large message boards. Overseas, there are even dark web sites—ranging from those specializing in animal abuse to those featuring so-called ‘gore videos’ depicting the mass slaughter of people in war. While such content isn’t permitted on major platforms, it’s often posted behind password protection on platforms with looser regulations.”

The account belonging to the defendant Kimura in this case appears to be a textbook example.

“The biggest problem is that there are no regulations in Japan regarding animal abuse videos.”

Under the law, pets are treated as “property.”

Attorney Takemura, together with the Kobe-based “Specified Nonprofit Corporation Animal Defense Team”—composed of lawyers, veterinarians, and others—is actively advocating for the need for regulatory legislation.

“There are three main reasons to regulate animal abuse videos themselves. First, it can deter the animal abuse that is being filmed in the first place. Second, it prevents the psychological impact—including PTSD—on people who unintentionally view such videos. Finally, it significantly undermines the principle of coexistence between animals and human society. This is in line with the spirit of the existing Animal Welfare Law ”

A common argument regarding the legal treatment of animals is that they are nothing more than “property.” Could it be that this treatment as “property” is what is hindering the enactment of such legislation?

“Although amendments have been made in recent years, the Civil Code has been in place since the Meiji era, and under it, animals are classified as movable property and treated as ‘things.’ Any harm done to them is considered damage to property. Personally, I think they should be treated differently from ordinary movable property, but changing that is not easy, and unfortunately, I think it will take time.”

Furthermore, as long as animals are defined as “things,” third parties have limited means to take action against animal abuse.

“When it comes to animal abuse, we basically have to rely on the police. I believe this is inherently the role of the police. This is because animal abuse itself does not directly cause harm to anyone. To put it bluntly—though this may be a bit of a misnomer—since there is no specific victim, the only recourse is to file a complaint.If it’s your own pet, it’s considered ‘property damage,’ but otherwise, there is no victim. If I had to put it some way, it would amount to nothing more than someone who witnessed it feeling upset…”

Regarding the case for which defendant Kimura has been indicted, if he is found guilty of violating the Animal Welfare Act, what kind of sentence might he face?

“Generally speaking, for a first-time offender, it would likely result in a suspended sentence. I don’t think it would suddenly lead to an actual prison term… It’s not a matter of simply regulating everything; there’s also the issue of “freedom of expression,” and there are those who oppose regulating animal abuse videos. This problem runs deeper than one might imagine.”

In this Iwate case, the spread of the video certainly led to the discovery of the animal abuse, and I can understand that point of view to a certain extent. However, if we ask whether we should simply leave animal abuse videos unchecked, wouldn’t that also constitute legal inaction? Unexpectedly, the case involving Defendant Kimura has brought various issues to light.

A judicial ruling will likely be handed down in the future, but many challenges remain in resolving issues of this nature.