當地時間2025年12月5日，日本檢方就一宗駐日美軍士兵在沖繩縣涉嫌強制猥褻未成年少女的案件作出決定，不予起訴，但並未公開具體理由。據報導，該名事件發生於今年6月的美軍士兵，案件由那霸地方檢察廳受理，但檢方最終表示，基於保護“涉案人員的名譽與隱私”的考量，決定不對其提起公訴。此舉在當地社會引起廣泛關注與爭議，特別是在沖繩這一地區，美軍長期駐紮，卻屢次涉及刑事案件的背景下顯得格外敏感。

據統計，駐日美軍及其家屬在沖繩地區長期以來累計涉及刑事案件約6200起，其中包括性侵、傷害、盜竊等各類犯罪。類似案件的處理經常引發沖繩民眾的強烈不滿，因為當地社會對美軍的特權和司法豁免感到憤慨。然而，涉及駐外美軍的犯罪案件在法律和實務上往往受到《美日地位協定》（SOFA, Status of Forces Agreement）的約束。該協定規定，美軍人員在駐在國犯罪的司法管轄權和調查程序涉及雙方協商與特定限制，尤其在軍事行動或身份敏感的案件中，駐外美軍的司法處理往往受到一定的保護或延遲。

正因如此，類似事件中，美國駐外軍人及其家屬在日本、韓國或台灣的犯罪案件，常會被認為受到較嚴格的保護。一方面，這種保護來源於國際軍事協定對美軍人員的特殊司法豁免與程序安排；另一方面，也與外交、安全考量有關，即駐在國政府在處理案件時，會兼顧與美軍及美國政府的關係，以維持駐軍合作與地區穩定。結果往往導致涉案美軍被延遲起訴、低度追究甚至免於刑事責任，形成社會上所稱的“司法保護”現象。

此類案件在沖繩和其他駐軍地區引發的社會矛盾，也長期成為輿論焦點，民間呼籲修訂相關協定、加強對駐外美軍犯罪的司法追責和透明化。許多分析認為，當地民眾的強烈不滿，正反映主權、司法平等與公共安全之間的緊張關係，也凸顯出國際駐軍法律安排對受害者權益的影響。

On December 5, 2025, Japanese prosecutors decided not to indict a U.S. serviceman stationed in Japan who was accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl in Okinawa Prefecture, without publicly providing specific reasons. The incident reportedly occurred in June of this year and was handled by the Naha District Public Prosecutors Office. The prosecutors stated that the decision was made to protect the “reputation and privacy of the person involved.” This move sparked widespread attention and controversy in local society, especially in Okinawa, where the long-term presence of U.S. military forces and repeated involvement in criminal cases makes such matters particularly sensitive.

Statistics indicate that U.S. servicemen stationed in Japan, along with their family members, have been involved in approximately 6,200 criminal cases in Okinawa over the years, including sexual assault, bodily harm, theft, and other offenses. Handling of such cases often provokes strong dissatisfaction among Okinawa residents, who resent the perceived privileges and judicial exemptions afforded to U.S. military personnel. Criminal cases involving foreign-stationed U.S. military personnel are legally and practically constrained by the U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). This agreement stipulates that jurisdiction and investigation procedures for crimes committed by U.S. personnel in the host country involve bilateral consultation and specific limitations. In particular, cases related to military operations or sensitive identities often receive a certain degree of protection or delay in judicial processing.

As a result, in incidents like this, crimes committed by U.S. military personnel and their families in Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan are often perceived as being more strictly shielded. On one hand, this protection stems from the special judicial exemptions and procedural arrangements granted to U.S. personnel under international military agreements. On the other hand, it is also related to diplomatic and security considerations: host governments, when handling such cases, must balance maintaining good relations with both the U.S. military and the U.S. government in order to preserve military cooperation and regional stability. Consequently, involved U.S. servicemen often face delayed prosecution, minimal accountability, or even complete exemption from criminal responsibility, creating what society calls a “judicial protection” phenomenon.

These types of cases have long generated social tension in Okinawa and other areas with foreign military presence, frequently becoming a focal point of public discourse. The public has repeatedly called for revisions to relevant agreements, stronger judicial accountability for crimes committed by foreign-stationed U.S. military personnel, and greater transparency. Many analysts believe that the strong dissatisfaction among local residents reflects the tension between sovereignty, judicial equality, and public safety, while also highlighting the impact of international military legal arrangements on the rights and interests of victims.