Should Japan abolish the Death Penalty?

[EmperorHirohito]

For those of you who dont know, and for those of you that do know, Japan has the death penalty for murder. The method of execution used is Hanging. Prisoners who are on death row in Japan are given very little warning as to when they are to be executed. It is often on the day of their execution that they are told that they are to be executed later that day and have no chance to contact family members and say their good-byes.

And from 1993 - 2000, Japan had only executed 39 people in total.

So I ask you do you beleive that Japan should abolish the death penalty and that murderers should spend the rest of their lives in prison, at the expense of the tax payer. Or do you think that Japan should keep the death penalty as there are other countries around the world who do execute those who commit murder. Or doesnt it bother you that Japan executes people for murder and that the subject of capital punishment doesnt interest you in the slightest.

[KirinMan]

Before I voted and made this post I looked at the poll results and saw that you EH didnt vote. I wonder if there is a reason for that? What is your "vote"?

Well I dont think it should be abolished. Particularly after the Sarin gas attacks and the AUM cult. There are a number of cult members including the leader Matsumoto Chizuo a.k.a. Asahara Shoko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoko_Asahara) currently sitting on death row. To me, the sooner they are executed the better. It has been 12 years since the attacks and there has been no closure for the people who lost loved ones or were injured in the attacks.

The method of killing makes no difference to me, in fact I often wonder if it is a deterent of sorts as well. The Japanese courts do not often hand down death sentences unless they are for particularly henious murders or crimes involving murder and threats to society, like the Wakayama curry case.

[EmperorHirohito]

Sorry about that Obeika, in setting up this thread and poll and calling up info about the death penalty I forgot to vote. But I have voted now ok.

And Yes I read about the Sarin gas attacks, and I have to agree with you, the sooner they are executed, the sooner the familys who lost people and those who were hurt can move on in life and put closure to what had happened.

[Sarapva]

I haven't voted yet because I don't really know what I think about the death penalty. I don't like seeing movie scenes where someone's executed (which is as close as I've come to an execution) - in fact, they leave me feeling very disturbed, especially electrocution. That controlled kind of killing just doesn't seem right. And I'm not convinced that death is a punishment - some might prefer to be put to death instead of living a long life in prison.

[KirinMan]

No problem. Thanks for adding the comments as well. This is a very divisive issue to many people, quite litterally a life and death thing where there is very little fence sitting. I hope that people come here and make their vote and post a comment, two or three. Good topic EH.

And I'm not convinced that death is a punishment - some might prefer to be put to death instead of living a long life in prison.
Knowing your concern for animals in nature I can understand your point of view.

What would a proper punishment be? Go back to the days of the Spanish Inquisition or drawing and quartering a person for their misdeeds? I dont think you mean that either.

[EmperorHirohito]

For those who really want to know I am in favour of the death penalty. I have seen what luxuries prisoners in the UK can have in their cells, I did help repaint a floating prison ship in southern England a few years ago. Recently I even applied to be a Prison Officer within the UK prison service.
However when it comes to execution I believe that it should be quick and fatal. From what I can remember in the old Soviet Union it was a bullet in the back of the head that killed you, quick and painless.

[Chidoriashi]

I'm not for getting rid of the death penalty totally, but some things about it need to be changed. For one, they should use lethal injection (in my opinion is seems to be the most humane way). Next though whole, not being told until the day of thing is pretty crappy, and not letting family members say good-bye to the condemned, also needs to be done away with. And lastly, and someone already said they might do this, but it should be left to only the henious cases. Japanese prisons from my knowledge really suck though, so I cannot say that life imprisonment is not much less of a punishment here.

[Sarapva]

Knowing your concern for animals in nature I can understand your point of view.
What would a proper punishment be? Go back to the days of the Spanish Inquisition or drawing and quartering a person for their misdeeds? I dont think you mean that either.

I think being in prison is probably punishment enough, though I'm no expert on this and haven't researched this topic. The only drawback I can see is whether there's the possibility that the person might someday be let out of prison, but in murder cases that's probably not likely. As far as having nice living quarters, as EH pointed out, I doubt that anyone would prefer living in a nice prison to being out of prison (though there are probably exceptions to that).

I believe in a universal karma, which is to say that every deed comes back to you, good and bad. Murdering another person is something that would bring horrific consequences to the murderer, according to this belief. So I believe that every murderer will be punished at some time, even if he gets away with it in his current life. (And yes, Obeika, I guess this is similar to how I feel about people killing animals.)

If there is going to be an execution, the quicker the death the better.

[Dutch Baka]

I am against the Death Penalty, and find it the easiest punnishment a murderer can get. With easy I mean, he doesn't suffer.

We are indeed paying their tax money, to keep them in Jail, give them food, etc. But I mean, as you write down as well in your post. How much tax do we pay for 39 of theses guys?

Who are we to decide about live and death, and what punishment is death to the prisoner? It sounds more as a relieve for us than a punishment.

How about the punishment his/her family will get?

[Half-n-Half]

I voted against abolishing it. I think Obeika made some really good points in his posts. I also agree with Chidoriashi that if it really is true they get the day of to find out about their execution, that should be changed. Not all murderers are animals, some are just average Joes. Multiple life sentences to keep a convict in jail for the remainder of their life also eats up a lot of taxes. It's ironic because it's almost like "punishing" the public for what the murderer did. The death penalty up front is more expensive, but over time life sentencing is higher.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html
Shows some figures about half way down. Might be a little bias looking at the title.
I believe in a universal karma, which is to say that every deed comes back to you, good and bad. Murdering another person is something that would bring horrific consequences to the murderer, according to this belief.
I think this is a very dangerous belief. According to this we should not punish anyone for anything, including murder, because their karma will eventually come back to punish them. I know this is an extreme view, but it could still lead to lax punishments for serious crimes. Try telling this belief to any murder victim's family and you will probably get a cold-shoulder at best.

[nanook]

The question for me is: Is there "good" murder? Someone murders somebody else, which is bad, and, as a punishment, gets murdered for it, which is good? Or, you are at war as a soldier, then you murder somebody, which makes you a hero, which is good. You murder the same person, when not at war, which is very bad, so you get murdered for it, which is good?

Before I understand (and agree to!) these inconsistencies exactly, I vote to abolish the death penalty.

Whether you trust the justice system in your country to always get the verdict right, could be another question, as the death penalty is not reversible, at least for now :).

[Mycernius]

I am against the death penalty, and, therefore, for Japan abolishing it. People say that by executing prisoners that you are saving tax, but the tax money is being used up by the endless appeals that some of these prisoners have. Insome cases in the US those on death row have died a natural death because of the amount of years wasted on appeals. I also believe, like Dutch, that they should suffer for what they have done. Some prisoners want they death penatly, as it either makes them martyrs in some bizzare ideals, Timothy MacVeigh for example, or they want it as a release from the years of imprisonment that they have endured, as recently shown in Italy I think, will have to check on that.
There is also the little doubt that they person executed could be innocent. There have been a few executions when the victim has turned out to be innocent and a vast payout has to be given to the person family.

[maushan3]

There is also the little doubt that they person executed could be innocent. There have been a few executions when the victim has turned out to be innocent and a vast payout has to be given to the person family.

Well, most people imprisoned are believed to be innocent, and I think being in jail is one hell of a punishment, so I don't think this should a reason for the abolishment of that penalty.

The point here is making people who made horrible things to pay the most for what they did. They need to face the consequences and, well, this is questionable to me because some people prefer to just die than being in jail, so it is very difficult to decide. The point is, they need to pay for what they did and affront the consequences, whether it be by doing time in jail or paying with their lives. They should be punished for doing bad things while being aware of the law.

Mauricio

[Sarapva]

I think this is a very dangerous belief. According to this we should not punish anyone for anything, including murder, because their karma will eventually come back to punish them. I know this is an extreme view, but it could still lead to lax punishments for serious crimes. Try telling this belief to any murder victim's family and you will probably get a cold-shoulder at best.

I don't think that the belief in karma means not punishing people for crimes. That's not what I meant by karma. The punishment they get could be part of their karmic debt. I mean, in a higher sense, they will pay it back one way or another. But that doesn't mean murderers should run loose, free to murder anyone they choose.

The point that nanook made about whether there is "good" murder - I wonder about that, too: do two wrongs make a right? Aren't the executioners committing murder as well? Is it really justified to do exactly what the criminal did?

[Elizabeth]

For those who really want to know I am in favour of the death penalty. I have seen what luxuries prisoners in the UK can have in their cells, I did help repaint a floating prison ship in southern England a few years ago. Recently I even applied to be a Prison Officer within the UK prison service.
However when it comes to execution I believe that it should be quick and fatal. From what I can remember in the old Soviet Union it was a bullet in the back of the head that killed you, quick and painless.
That's all well and good for England, but if the conditions in Japan happened in the US they would rightly be considered a method of torture. You can read more about the horror that is a Japanese death row isolation cell here.

http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22603

[KirinMan]

You can read more about the horror that is a Japanese death row isolation cell here.
http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22603
Good at least society knows that they wont escape and they are being punished for their crimes

Also they should have thought about that before they committed their crimes. The punishment fits the crime.

[Mycernius]

Also they should have thought about that before they committed their crimes. The punishment fits the crime.
That is all very well in an ideal world, but it isn't one. Your average psychotic will not consider the course of his (no sexism implied, but most psychotic killers are men) crime. It makes perfect sense to them. It wouldn't deter a fanatic, be it religious or some other ideal, they don't care, they want to make a statement, and don't really care about what comes to them. In other cases, ie: the murder for money, the murderer would think that they had covered everything. They are usually shocked to be discovered. In most cases they are fully aware of the punishment, they just don't care, or think that they won't be caught.

[Half-n-Half]

That's no excuse for commiting the crime. Even if they weren't aware of the consequences or just didn't care, they need to be punished like any other murderer.. Like Obeika said, the punishment fits the crime. Also, they won't be on the streets, free to commit another crime, oblivious to the consequences involved.

[Elizabeth]

Good at least society knows that they wont escape and they are being punished for their crimes
Also they should have thought about that before they committed their crimes. The punishment fits the crime.
So you would error on the side of safety to society (which is already extremely safe) against the possibility of an wrongful sentence and possible death even for someone that may even have been forced into confessing but didn't in truth commit the crime ?

The rate of conviction in Japan is already close to 100% which makes me extremely suspicious of a highly prosecution biased system. It is closer to 70-80% in the West and I think there have still been around 500 wrongful convictions that have been uncovered in the US to date.

[KirinMan]

They are usually shocked to be discovered. In most cases they are fully aware of the punishment, they just don't care, or think that they won't be caught.

And I have zero sympathy for them when they are on Japanese death row in the conditions described in the link.

I dont have any statiistics to back this up but I dont think that the majority of murderers are phsycotic maniacs either. Just regular people like you and me. Sure there are physco's out there but those are not the ones that I am talking about when I "agree" with the death penalty. The sick need attention, and should be cared for.

Take the case of AUM's Matsumoto Chizuo as an example, Is he sick or just acting, he seems to be faking mental illness to delay the obvious, if death row is a bleak as written then hell I say let him rot there for another 10 years or so to pay for his part in terrorizing the society here.

So you would error on the side of safety to society (which is already extremely safe) against the possibility of an wrongful sentence and possible death even for someone that may even have been forced into confessing but didn't in truth commit the crime ?

This doesnt sound like a question to me but more like you are making a judgement about how I may think or feel based upon a response to your previous post. If you think this society is "extremely safe" then there wouldnt be a need for death row in the first place. It isnt that safe, but it is relatively safe in comparison to the US. I think people in the US have gotten numb to the daily violence that occurs there and are no longer shocked by murder.

For clarification and so noone reading this misunderstand we are talking about convicted murderers on death row, not the chance of a wrongful sentence for other crimes, this discussion is about the death penalty only

So to save you the trouble of having to rewrite and actually ask me this question a second time I will say with an emphatic yes I would err on the side of society vs the rights or freedom of a convicted killer.

Even if the system convicts a person wrongfully, the snail pace of the said system gives the convicted plenty of time in most cases to appeal their sentences. As in the case in the link.

The rate of conviction in Japan is already close to 100% which makes me extremely suspicious of a highly prosecution biased system. It is closer to 70-80% in the West and I think there have still been around 500 wrongful convictions that have been uncovered in the US to date
So, it just means the cops here dont prosecute if they dont have a case, it's that plain and simple.

I dont accept your assumption that just because the US has uncovered 500 wrongful convictions that the same exists here. That is just too far of a leap of imagination. The two systems are totally different.

I am a bit surprised that you, Elizabeth, would try to compare apples and oranges to attempt to strengthen your position.

Not to say that the system is infallable as no system anywhere is, mistakes have been and will be made in the future as well. we are human.

[caster51]

The rate of conviction in Japan is already close to 100% which makes me extremely suspicious of a highly prosecution biased system. It is closer to 70-80% in the West and I think there have still been around 500 wrongful convictions that have been uncovered in the US to date.

I bilieve so then The rate of conviction in Japan is already close to 100%.
the grey and doubt are never punished...
It doesn't become a Death Penalty only by killing one.

[KirinMan]

It doesn't become a Death Penalty only by killing one.

Question here, are you refering to the slim chance that an innocent person could be executed?




@MO:relief:

[Elizabeth]

And I have zero sympathy for them when they are on Japanese death row in the conditions described in the link.
I dont have any statiistics to back this up but I dont think that the majority of murderers are phsycotic maniacs either. Just regular people like you and me. Sure there are physco's out there but those are not the ones that I am talking about when I "agree" with the death penalty. The sick need attention, and should be cared for.
Take the case of AUM's Matsumoto Chizuo as an example, Is he sick or just acting, he seems to be faking mental illness to delay the obvious, if death row is a bleak as written then hell I say let him rot there for another 10 years or so to pay for his part in terrorizing the society here.
This doesnt sound like a question to me but more like you are making a judgement about how I may think or feel based upon a response to your previous post. If you think this society is "extremely safe" then there wouldnt be a need for death row in the first place. It isnt that safe, but it is relatively safe in comparison to the US. I think people in the US have gotten numb to the daily violence that occurs there and are no longer shocked by murder.
For clarification and so noone reading this misunderstand we are talking about convicted murderers on death row, not the chance of a wrongful sentence for other crimes, this discussion is about the death penalty only
So to save you the trouble of having to rewrite and actually ask me this question a second time I will say with an emphatic yes I would err on the side of society vs the rights or freedom of a convicted killer.
Even if the system convicts a person wrongfully, the snail pace of the said system gives the convicted plenty of time in most cases to appeal their sentences. As in the case in the link.

That piece was a general portrait describing the harsh conditions endured by Japanese death row inmates. No details on legal status of were given for any of the cases.

Unless there's been a major effort at redress since 2005, the last time a retrial petition was even granted was 1989 if you believe the excerpts from this book by the Hoover Institute, a conservative American think tank.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/2931521.html

[caster51]

I think Japan should keep the Death Penalty.
It is necessary to pile up all evidences and to execute the judgment of the
capital punishment unlimitedly with 100%

Even Life in prison is a parole in 15 years. :(
I think this is wrong.

[EmperorHirohito]

If the death penalty was abolished not only in Japan but around the world, and murderers were let out of prison on parole say after only 15 years, and killed yet again, how would the general public feel about the justice system?

Do you think people would start campaigning for the restoration of the death penalty or just do nothing about it because they dont want to get involved in politics?

[Elizabeth]

So, it just means the cops here dont prosecute if they dont have a case, it's that plain and simple.
This is from an Trans-Pacific Radio editorial. It is in line with other condemnations of police techniques although I haven't tried to confirm each charge and fact levelled independently.



t seems that the media has uncovered more evidence of how if someone gets arrested in Japan, they could be in big trouble. This quote from the Mainichi shows that a taxi driver spent more than two years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit:

The man was handed a three-year prison term in November 2002 after pleading guilty to the charges during his trial. He was released on parole in January 2005 after being jailed for two years and one month. However, police subsequently learned that another man under arrest is responsible for the rape and other attempted rape cases.

A quick note: judging by the write-up in The Economist, the Mainichi didn’t get all of its facts straight. The man actually pleaded not guilty and asserted his innocence throughout the trial. He had a credible alibi, and was able to demonstrate how he couldn’t possibly have committed the crime. Unfortunately, as is routinely the case in Japan, he was convicted based on the confession he was forced into signing after three days of intense interrogation.

The dots are not difficult to connect here–the authorities made a public apology when they figured out they were wrong, but have no idea where the freed “rapist” has gone. By simple logical extrapolation one quickly realizes that the cops might not have any idea where many convicted rapists (and murderers) are at the moment. Of course, it might not be that far-fetched to assume that some of those guys are innocent too, so it’s probably not something to get all worked up about.

Question 1: Do police force suspects to confess in Japan?

There are a lot of percentages floating around these days. The 99.9% conviction rate and an 86.6% rate of ‘full confession by the accused’ are two such statistics that regularly appear in writing related to this topic. While confessions are sought by authorities in most countries when it comes to criminal cases, no other country in the industrialized world can boast confession rates anywhere near Japan’s.

Confessions are important partly because they are believed to be the first step on the road to rehabilitation in the eyes of the court and society as a whole. Additionally, most prosecutors won’t touch a case unless they are guaranteed to win. Confessions, voluntary or forced, are an integral part of that certainty of conviction (note: prosecutors, as in the infamous Sayama case, are often not required to disclose evidence).

There also happens to be a woeful lack of crime scene investigative skills/determination on the part of police in Japan. Confessions, from the perspective of police, prosecutors, and the court, are nice because they immediately make up for the fact that the names of witnesses were not noted, pictures and statements were not taken, and blood samples were forgotten. Whether this inattention to detail is a result of the dependence on confessions, or, conversely, the confessions are necessitated by a lack of professional astuteness on the part of the police force, is a bit like getting involved in an argument about whether the chicken or the egg came first.

Of course, as can be seen on TV, there are occasions when the police are forced to do a more comprehensive job of collecting evidence and protecting crime scenes. Look closely though, and one notices a pattern: the instances when police are seen spending extended periods of time jotting things on clipboards are usually either when something big has been broken, someone really famous or very young was involved, or the media has once again (miraculously) arrived at the same time as investigators.

In agreement with the allegations just leveled, the 1991 White Paper on Police called for:

the establishment of a ‘Police With Crime Investigation Capabilities’. This would involve, amongst other things, the introduction of ’scientific knowhow’ into investigative activities, the improvement of investigative skills, and the development of ‘high-calibre’ investigators.

This “culture of confession” that is at the heart of the Japanese justice system goes a long way in negating the value of thorough investigation, so actual progress on the recommendations made internally in 1991 has been difficult to identify.

Wouldn’t it therefore make sense not to confess while being interrogated? If the police don’t have much (or any) evidence, or have thrown some of it out (as is the case with the evidence from the recent murder and dismemberment involving the Muto siblings), then wouldn’t it be better to just keep quiet during interrogations?

It would appear that the system has already thought of that one and moved decisively to safeguard against it. The ace up the authorities’ collective sleeve is daiyo kangoku. Daiyo kangoku can be translated as ’substitute prison’ in English, and in practice it is a very effective confession generator.

These substitute prisons are usually located in koban (police boxes), and they are perhaps the best display of the incredible autonomy from outside oversight, both political and operational, that is enjoyed by the police in Japan. The daiyo kangoku system was put into place in 1908 in response to a shortage of prison space. That shortage, needless to say, no longer exists.

Police, under pressure to improve crime clearance rates, continue to take advantage of the daiyo kangogu system. Police are allowed to detain suspects for up to 24 days; the suspect spends most of that time without the help of a lawyer or many of the protections that would safeguard the health and sanity of suspects in other modern countries. During the initial 72 hours of confinement a suspect can be held without charge, and access to a lawyer comes at the suspect’s expense.

If three days of interrogation are not enough for the police to get what they want from the accused, they can request that the court extend the period of confinement by an additional 10 days (this request is granted 99% of the time). If those first two weeks aren’t enough, then another 10 day period will be requested and granted.

24 days with only limited access to legal counsel, and few limits on interrogation techniques (despite protections legislated on behalf of detainees), is a long time to hold out! The direct access to the accused enjoyed by the police usually results in a confession whether the suspect is guilty or not.

For those already thinking it, you are correct: police in most industrialized nations don’t have half the power that Japanese police are afforded. The only tangible outside check on power would have to be the prefectural and national Public Safety Committees which, as Walter A. Ames wrote in Police and Community in Japan, “…are usually filled by elderly and conservative men who almost always defer to police decisions”.

Maximum pressure, such as withholding meals, physical coersion, and sleep deprivation, is applied by police and investigators to make sure that a confession is signed.

It is worth noting that the justice system enables all of this. Videotapes and recordings are not needed (indeed they’re not allowed!) in the interrogation room; naturally, there are many cases where forced confessions have occurred. It is likely that a significant percentage of those forced confessions are indeed false. The fact that defense lawyers habitually warn investigators against forcing confessions from their clients is evidence both that forced confessions happen and that defense lawyers are allowed little or no participation when interrogations take place.

So, do police force suspects to confess in Japan? The answer, as in many countries, is yes. The troubling part about the situation in Japan, however, is that confessions are obtained in a surprisingly high number of cases, and that there are no guarantees that police aren’t resorting to human rights abuses to get suspects to sign police-drafted confessions.


http://www.transpacificradio.com/2007/03/11/forced-confessions-and-the-japanese-justice-system/

[Dutch Baka]

Just a question, which is a little bit off topic on the death penalty but we are talking about Japanese prison so I just want to know how much years will be taken off on good behaviour?

In know that they will take of 1/3 of your time off in Dutch prisons for good behaviour. you kill someone you get 18 years, you behave well and you spend only 12 years.

I you are committing a crime such as killing, or mass killing you should not expect any mercy... and for me mercy is the death penalty.

One more time because I have already asked it before but nobody responded:

1. What does the death penalty means for his/her family?
2. What is more painful for a mass killer, serial killer, etc? 60 years in prison or dead, which is in my way too easy?

[KirinMan]

1. What does the death penalty means for his/her family?
2. What is more painful for a mass killer, serial killer, etc? 60 years in prison or dead, which is in my way too easy?

I honestly do not know about number one, other than the stigma that the family must have to go through knowing that one of their own was an executed murderer.

In regards to number two, if the prisons death row is as bleak as it sounds having a person live that existence may be enough of a punishment however since Japan does not have the sentencing option of life without parole the person given a life sentence would get parole eventually.

So to me at least the death penalty is the only option, the families of the victim and society would at least have closure and never have to fear that the murderer would be let free into society.

[Idiomatic]

Honestly the people that get the death sentence in japan are guilty without a shred of doubt. They have committed particularly horrible crimes (3x over 7 years...). And I have a lack of faith in the prison system in rehabilitating anyone. ALSO the death sentence at least in the states is MORE expensive than life imprisonment, i'd guess near even in Japan.

The question also shouldn't be about punishment. It's been shown that punishment/rewards arent a good way of teaching ethics/values its merely good at getting peoples attention. (You shouldnt want to avoid killing someone out of fear of getting caught, you shouldnt do it because its a bad thing to do...). Nevermind the fact that punishment as a form of revenge isn't helpful for anyone.

So it comes down to whether we want these people to exist or not. I take the position that these people are better off dead. I'd rather not have something so twisted be interacting with other people. So long as the law isn't extended i think its a good thing.

[KirinMan]

So long as the law isn't extended

What do you mean by this statement?

[Idiomatic]

I just mean so long as they dont loosen the conditions that can get you the death sentence. I believe in khazikstan they had a death penalty which they quietly extended to include 'sedition' and treason as reasons for the sentence... obviously not something to support :P

[Zaff]

Yes the death penalty should be kept, not only does it serve to get rid of the most vile of criminals on earth it serves as a warning to the rest.

[SouthernBelle82]

Wow that sounds pretty harsh but they do have a better rate of people on the death penalty than we do in the United States. I can't stand the death penalty. I think it's wrong and it's humans playing with others lives. I don't know how Japan's court system is but here in the States there have been countless stories of people who were put to death only later to learn they were innocent of the crime and once the person is dead there's really nothing that can be done about it. I just feel awful for the people who have to go through that and not even get to tell their family members goodbye or have their lawyers try to get an appeal or something. Here in the States the only time a hanging could happen is if someone committed treason. That's one of the very few rules the country has had since the beginning. If someone committs treason here and is found guilty in a court room of that treason by their peers than they will be put to death by either a firing squad or a hanging. I'm surprised nobody has tried to change that rule quite honestly. I think it depends on how majority of Japanese feel about the death penalty. Here in the States people seem okay with it so nothing gets done about it sadly and I think it would be the same in Japan or any other country.

[SouthernBelle82]

Why do you think killing someone else is supposed to bring closure? You're just doing the same thing that you found guilty of the other person so in reality you're just as guilty as that person for killing them. So does that mean you should be put to death for murdering that person? Murder is still murder no matter how fancy you try to dress it up as. Personally I think they should sit and rot in prison for the rest of their life if they do something and actually serve their sentence. I believe in reincarnation so if the person leaves that body they'll just go on to their afterlife and could have the possibility of coming back as someone else so they're getting away with their crime with not having to serve. Of course that all depends on how the person views life and death and if they believe in any sort of after life of course. Here in the States there was a guy who was killed by death row maybe a year or two ago and it was a big deal because the guy was a member of a popular gang in California (I believe he was a part of the Crypts gang or the Bloods I can't remember) and while he was in prison he wrote books geared towards teens and young adults to keep them out of the gang life and not to go his route. So while he may have done bad things in his earlier part in life he was trying to change that cycle with gangs and in cases like that I think he shouldn't have been put to death and I thought it was a real shame because he could have really helped people. I remember that night of his death I listened to a live broadcast of supporters and well wishers at the prison and one kid was saying how he was once starting to get involved with gangs but read this guy's books and it really opened his eyes a lot so he at lesat saved one kid from gangs and that kid can go on to save other people.
Before I voted and made this post I looked at the poll results and saw that you EH didnt vote. I wonder if there is a reason for that? What is your "vote"?
Well I dont think it should be abolished. Particularly after the Sarin gas attacks and the AUM cult. There are a number of cult members including the leader Matsumoto Chizuo a.k.a. currently sitting on death row. To me, the sooner they are executed the better. It has been 12 years since the attacks and there has been no closure for the people who lost loved ones or were injured in the attacks.
The method of killing makes no difference to me, in fact I often wonder if it is a deterent of sorts as well. The Japanese courts do not often hand down death sentences unless they are for particularly henious murders or crimes involving murder and threats to society, like the Wakayama curry case.

[SouthernBelle82]

I believe in karma and that's not true. You still have to hold people accountable for their actions according to the law they broke. The belief is that the Universe and the powers that be will also bring a punishment on you depending on what you did. So for example if you did something to hurt someone else it will eventually come back to you in some type of blowback and it's in any type of forum of punishment. You'd usually recognize it. Whether a murder victims family believes it or not is not the case. They'll still be punished sooner or later as a punishment from the powers that be. The whole idea is to just remember what your own actions are doing. If you're active in putting someone else to death that can come back to haunt you since you're doing murder yourself. The karma punishment can come at any time whether this life, in the other realm(s) or in another life down the road. You never know how or when it's going to happen and if it's a part of your current life plan or if the powers that be will include your punishment in a later life whether on this plane or another.


I think this is a very dangerous belief. According to this we should not punish anyone for anything, including murder, because their karma will eventually come back to punish them. I know this is an extreme view, but it could still lead to lax punishments for serious crimes. Try telling this belief to any murder victim's family and you will probably get a cold-shoulder at best.

[SouthernBelle82]

So you would never mind the fact that people all the time are convicted of a crime, like murder, and later turn out to be innocent. There are cases like that all over the United States. Of course I'm hoping that Japan has a better legal system than we do in the States but here our legal system is based not on justice but on moolah and cash. An ex-governor of Illinois abolished the death penalty in his state because of all the prisoners who were in prison for injustice. And if someone commits a crime like murder they aren't like you and me. You and me are sitting in our homes or offices or school or wherever we are and having an intelligent conversation and not out there planning murder I hope. You seem to be more intelligent than that but of course I'm not familiar with you in person but I would hope you wouldn't do something like that. I've seen at least a good number of cases where someone does something like murder and the neighbors are interviewed and surprised and say "oh they couldn't have done that!" But yes instead of putting someone to death they should be helped and if they can't be helped they should still serve their sentence until they die from a natural death (I'm sure some will try and even be successful at their own suicide which would be their own doing from their own hand). So what if you kill someone only later to learn that person was innocent? And do you really need to do more than 100 death row murders? (See George Bush when he was governor)

And I have zero sympathy for them when they are on Japanese death row in the conditions described in the link.
I dont have any statiistics to back this up but I dont think that the majority of murderers are phsycotic maniacs either. Just regular people like you and me. Sure there are physco's out there but those are not the ones that I am talking about when I "agree" with the death penalty. The sick need attention, and should be cared for.
Take the case of AUM's Matsumoto Chizuo as an example, Is he sick or just acting, he seems to be faking mental illness to delay the obvious, if death row is a bleak as written then hell I say let him rot there for another 10 years or so to pay for his part in terrorizing the society here.
This doesnt sound like a question to me but more like you are making a judgement about how I may think or feel based upon a response to your previous post. If you think this society is "extremely safe" then there wouldnt be a need for death row in the first place. It isnt that safe, but it is relatively safe in comparison to the US. I think people in the US have gotten numb to the daily violence that occurs there and are no longer shocked by murder.
For clarification and so noone reading this misunderstand we are talking about convicted murderers on death row, not the chance of a wrongful sentence for other crimes, this discussion is about the death penalty only
So to save you the trouble of having to rewrite and actually ask me this question a second time I will say with an emphatic yes I would err on the side of society vs the rights or freedom of a convicted killer.
Even if the system convicts a person wrongfully, the snail pace of the said system gives the convicted plenty of time in most cases to appeal their sentences. As in the case in the link.
So, it just means the cops here dont prosecute if they dont have a case, it's that plain and simple.
I dont accept your assumption that just because the US has uncovered 500 wrongful convictions that the same exists here. That is just too far of a leap of imagination. The two systems are totally different.
I am a bit surprised that you, Elizabeth, would try to compare apples and oranges to attempt to strengthen your position.
Not to say that the system is infallable as no system anywhere is, mistakes have been and will be made in the future as well. we are human.

[kireikoori]

The death penalty shouldn't exist in any country.

[KirinMan]

Southernbelle, one thing I would like to share with you, currently Japan has no life without parole sentencing option. The death penalty is the only option.

Besides that even if it were an option I dont want my tax money going to pay for some guys life behind bars either. Plus we have to pay for the guards, the prisons, everything else just to keep society safe. But that's a joke if you ask me. Ever think about that? Or do you think everyone can be rehabilitated into society?

Would you keep a guy alive like Jeffery Dahmer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer), ooppss I forgot he got killed in prison by another inmate because the state he was tried in didnt have the death penalty. However, end result, same thing, killed because of his crimes.

For every one person that you can bring up or discuss as being innocent, I am pretty darn sure that I could probably find a hundred cases or more where they were guilty. This part of the argument to me at least holds the least water. There is no perfect system, there are problems, yet the people in the US judge the value of life differently than other countries.

Just something for you to think about, thanks for sharing.

[pugtm]

lets see a guy raped a pregnant women, killed the family and then goes to jail for a few years till he gets out and does it again? Yeah right. Some people don't deserve to live. Of course there need to be a lot of checks to make sure you got the right person but death penalty is definitely a must.

[Elizabeth]

So you would never mind the fact that people all the time are convicted of a crime, like murder, and later turn out to be innocent. There are cases like that all over the United States. Of course I'm hoping that Japan has a better legal system than we do in the States but here our legal system is based not on justice but on moolah and cash. An ex-governor of Illinois abolished the death penalty in his state because of all the prisoners who were in prison for injustice.
The same errors have been made in the Japanese judicial system. Four death row prisoners had their convictions overturned from 1980-1989 (out of a population of less than 100). Since that time, 1 appeal for retrial has been granted. Which makes it very likely that there are more innocent people waiting to be executed in Japan.

While it's horrifying that innocent people end up spending 20-30 years on death row in America, at least here there are multiple opportunities for a case to be reopened, reviewed and reinvestigated. More than 150 have been freed since the 1970's, over 40 in the last seven years (out of a population of 2,000-3,000 folks)

In Japan, police rely almost exclusively on extracted confessions from detainees instead of doing a fair, impartial, thorough, independent investigation on the evidence at hand. And once there is a confession, if the suspect is sentenced to death, the chance for a retrial is very, very, very remote.

http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32521&page=2

lets see a guy raped a pregnant women, killed the family and then goes to jail for a few years till he gets out and does it again? Yeah right. Some people don't deserve to live. Of course there need to be a lot of checks to make sure you got the right person but death penalty is definitely a must.

These checks are no where close to being in place in Japan, death penalty cases or not.


Besides that even if it were an option I dont want my tax money going to pay for some guys life behind bars either. Plus we have to pay for the guards, the prisons, everything else just to keep society safe. But that's a joke if you ask me. Ever think about that? Or do you think everyone can be rehabilitated into society?

You're paying for it now to keep capital inmates locked up for 20-30 years or more, many of whom are decades past their prime crime bearing potential. Anyone that wants to ensure someone isn't going to get out -- advocate to make life sentences a possible option and open up the system for appeals.

The conditions on death row are kept so under wraps they aren't even useful to potential criminals as a deterrent. For crying out loud, legislators that fund the places can hardly get access inside the cells and death chambers. It's an immoral and totally ineffective administration of (in)justice however you very carefully slice the argument and bring in unrelated evidence from American serial killers.

[junjunforever]

I believe people should take responsibilities for their actions.

People risk their lives to protect freedom and the protection of their loved ones. People who breach this so grossly, and kills dozens of people indiscriminantly to fulfill his desires, should pay for his acts with his life, however cruel that may seem.

But of course, it should be used very sparringly.

I remember doing a extensive research on this, and it is true that the existence of death penalty has no correlation to crimerate in the area, nor the knowledge of death penalty stops people from committing out the crime. But if they do something, they should take responsiblity for it.

[KirinMan]

You're paying for it now to keep capital inmates locked up for 20-30 years or more, many of whom are decades past their prime crime bearing potential. Anyone that wants to ensure someone isn't going to get out -- advocate to make life sentences a possible option and open up the system for appeals.
Actually no I am not, maybe you are but not me.

[EmperorHirohito]

The death penalty shouldn't exist in any country.


Im afraid to say it does exist Kireikoori, even in your own country. Just be glad this is not China, they just line you up against a wall and shoot you dead.

[made of stone]

I absolutely agree with the broad thrust of Elizabeth san's comments.

I have been debating this issue in depth for half my life now, and I shall never be swayed from my deep conviction that in any modern, civilised society, there is no place in either philosophy or practice for the death penalty.

For me, and whatever the pecuniary cost to society, it is absolutely abhorrent to take a human life, (though I sadly must acknowledge that almost equally barbaric - or more tortuous - atrocities can be committed within failing, or failed, detention schemes).

It's all so sad (and not least that society and the governing classes have failed these offenders so spectacularly in their own way) :(

[GodEmperorLeto]

The conditions on death row are kept so under wraps they aren't even useful to potential criminals as a deterrent. For crying out loud, legislators that fund the places can hardly get access inside the cells and death chambers. It's an immoral and totally ineffective administration of (in)justice however you very carefully slice the argument and bring in unrelated evidence from American serial killers.

You can fault the Enlightenment for that.

Punishment, then, will tend to become the most hidden part of the penal process. This has several consequences: it leaves the domain of more or less everyday perception and enters that of abstract consciousness; its effectiveness is seen as resulting from its inevitablility, not from its visible intensity; it is the certainty of being punished and not the horrifying spectacle of public punishment that must discourage crime; the exeplary mechanics of punishment changes its mechanisms. --Discipline & Punish (http://www.amazon.com/Discipline-Punish-Prison-Michel-Foucault/dp/0679752552/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-6544039-9516428?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188678407&sr=8-1)

Basically, the reaction toward the public spectacle during punishment during the late 18th/early19th centuries was so negative among the intelligencia that it was removed from public view. The trial, however, took precedence, becoming almost ritualized and very much in the public vision. However, the public spectacle served as a powerful deterrent against criminal activity.

Punishment had no doubt ceased to be centered on torture as a technique of pain; it assumed as its principal object loss of wealth or rights. But a punishment like forced labor or even imprisonment--mere loss of liberty--has never functioned without a certain additional element of punishment that certainly concerns the body itself: rationing of food, sexual deprivation, corporal punishment, solitary confinement. ... It seems to be contained in the question itself: since it is no longer the body, it must be the soul. The expiation that once rained down upon the body must be replaced by a punishment that acts in depth on the heart, the thoughts, the will, the inclinations.

Unfortunately, the altruistic admonitions of Enlightenment thinkers did little to remedy the soul of humankind.

I have been debating this issue in depth for half my life now, and I shall never be swayed from my deep conviction that in any modern, civilised society, there is no place in either philosophy or practice for the death penalty.

Forgive me for waxing postmodern and philosophical, but I think Foucault's revelations on the subject of direct physical punishment, including death of the criminal, are highly relevent to this discussion. And I most certainly think you should read Foucault's treatise on this, and further progress into the historical and philosophical repurcussions of these sorts of ideas.

Personally, I think the "enlightened and civilized" societies' attempts to rehabilitate criminals is an abject failure, and that corporal punishment is actually preferable, up to and including the death penalty. Caning and whipping might seem barbaric, but they would most certainly serve as a better deterrent than sending someone to a federal pound-me-in-the-***-prison (thank you, Office Space) where they can lift weights and watch TV. Especially since the system labels you a criminal and you never, ever, truly pay your debt to society, which, ironically, is a debt paid by taxpayer dollars much more than corporal punishment would cost.

As for my opinion about Japan's death penalty, though, I have to say that I don't think it is any of my business. I respect Japan's sovereignty and their right to decide their own policy within their borders. I support it, and the judicious application of it. If it is limited only to the most heinous of offences, rather than hot-blooded crimes of passion, it is perfectly applicable, but not something to be handed out by judges like candy from the Easter Bunny.

[made of stone]

Forgive me for waxing postmodern and philosophical, but I think Foucault's revelations on the subject of direct physical punishment, including death of the criminal, are highly relevant to this discussion. And I most certainly think you should read Foucault's treatise on this, and further progress into the historical and philosophical repurcussions of these sorts of ideas.

Absolutely forgiven! I shall look into the text you've recommended with very great interest, GodEmperorLeto san, and that very well make the beginnings of a very fascinating thread in and of itself, with debate between us and others on that specific topic. However I can assure you that I haven't taken the position I've already declared here without many years of my own personal reflection, as well as debate with Professors (of both British history, and those of the United States), and exploration through discussion with many folk of different views that I have met.

i shall never change my view, and that was the spirit in which I gave my first post; my opinion on this is incontrovertible, and the answer I gave to the original question non-negotiable; capital punishment is wrong in my book!!

:angel:

[GodEmperorLeto]

i shall never change my view, and that was the spirit in which I gave my first post; my opinion on this is incontrovertible, and the answer I gave to the original question non-negotiable; capital punishment is wrong in my book!!
You don't have to change your view, but try to retain an openness to new ideas. Personally, I believe killing is morally wrong, period, but I've often had to consider morality and ethics as separate things when it comes to politics. Thank God I'm not a politician, I'd never be able to live with myself.

When it comes to capital punishment, generally I try to respect the opinions of others while offering different sources of information for them to consider. But when you get right down to it, from a moral standpoint, it's murder, so, there you go.

By the way, not to open a whole other can of worms, but I'm also pro choice, although morally I believe it's murder as well. I believe if capital punishment is wrong, then so is abortion--I try to be consistent with my views. These issues do not exist in a vacuum, but indeed impact one-another.

[made of stone]

You don't have to change your view, but try to retain an openness to new ideas. Personally, I believe killing is morally wrong, period, but I've often had to consider morality and ethics as separate things when it comes to politics. Thank God I'm not a politician, I'd never be able to live with myself.

Believe me, I pride myself on being open to new ideas - my whole life is based upon each and every possibility that I will learn and grow!

On this though, I am fairly sure. The evidence and opinions I witnessed in my late-teens have only been re-confirmed to me by everything else I've come across ever since. In the meantime, too, my spirituality has grown to the point where I'm certain that the spiritual and the urge for revenge/retribution/whatever-you-want-to-call-it are absolutely mutually exclusive and incompatible.

And lol, we'll have to agree to disagree! For me, ethics and morals are inseparable; a necessary and predisposed part of each other.

Lol at your point about the politicians. I feel, and have always felt, the same way. That's why I turned my nose up at law or other similar careers; all fighting for personal gain at the expense of humanity as individuals and as larger groupings. Hehe, I suppose that is also why my direct peers earn £50 000 + a year (and up to triple that), while here I am struggling on almost a minimum wage as a teacher and carer. But at least my conscience is clear - and I am happy with myself as a human being!!

[Goldiegirl]

I voted yes in the the elections in Wisconsin in approval for the death penalty (lethal injection). It can only be used for murders in which there is DNA evidence. You can be found guilty of murder in the first degree on circumstantial evidnence and get life in prison but not the death penalty. Oh, if there is visual evidence such as a picture or video tape showing the crime you can get the death penalty as well. I think that's fair. Japan's death penalty seems a little unclear.

[musicsalsa]

For those of you who dont know, and for those of you that do know, Japan has the death penalty for murder. The method of execution used is Hanging. Prisoners who are on death row in Japan are given very little warning as to when they are to be executed. It is often on the day of their execution that they are told that they are to be executed later that day and have no chance to contact family members and say their good-byes.
And from 1993 - 2000, Japan had only executed 39 people in total.
So I ask you do you beleive that Japan should abolish the death penalty and that murderers should spend the rest of their lives in prison, at the expense of the tax payer. Or do you think that Japan should keep the death penalty as there are other countries around the world who do execute those who commit murder. Or doesnt it bother you that Japan executes people for murder and that the subject of capital punishment doesnt interest you in the slightest.
If you murder someone, what are we the society to do?? feed you forever, give you teachers for classes to fill your day,running track, swimming pool, gym so you may excercise, specialist doctors to watch over your health. A roof over your head and three meals a day. Mmmmmmmmmmmmm Free legal advise, en suite bathroom, television, DVD player, library of books, records, DVD´s. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Human rights?? where are the human rights of the innocent of the people who work hard to have an average life so these dogs can burn our money. Not all people are good there is evil, hang them, oh! dear they can not say goodbye to their families, that is sooooooooo sad. The people they murdered! did they get the chance too??
It does bother me and interest me that the government have the common sense to hang these dog´s and I would add that bad blood is bad blood and for thousands of years before DNA was discovered, families repeat their crimes time after time. Ever heard the saying the apple does not fall far from the tree. I knew as a small child that this or that family had bad blood and I was to stay away from the children or good blood and that I could play with the children of that family. The years is proof that my fussy old grandmother was right.:cool:

[Taiko666]

The death penalty is an abomination.

Nobody would argue that any legal system is infallible. Therefore it follows that supporters of the death penalty are willing to see significant numbers of innocent, wrongly convicted people killed to satiate their sense of justice/revenge.

I voted Yes by the way.

[kameron]

The death penalty is an abomination.
Nobody would argue that any legal system is infallible. Therefore it follows that supporters of the death penalty are willing to see significant numbers of innocent, wrongly convicted people killed to satiate their sense of justice/revenge.
I voted Yes by the way.

Try and tell people that Shoko Asahara is innocent...hehe

I'm not bothered because in Japan it's only used on the worst of the worst, and even then it takes a long time until they are actually executed from what i've read.

In general I think life inprisonment without parole is a better alternative but Japan isn't abusing their system unlike some other countries.

I'd just like to add that there is no death penalty in my home country and I wouldn't want it any other way.

[hotaruika]

I　belive need death penalty with careful consideration.
Japanese courts pass a sentence of death to heinous criminales only
（exsample;multi-killer&no doubt of false charge&reformation impossible）
They don't have qualification for alive in Japan.
They must atone for them crime

[timtak]

There is research on murder rates in Japan which shows that the seasonal adjusted monthly murder rater increases after death penalties are carried out. In other words the death penalty acts as the opposite of a deterent, as an encouragement. I think that it invokes in people a sense of bravado or perhaps just devaluse life.

If the research is accurate then with the current rate of executions, we should be in for a lot of violent crime.

I would approve if it saved lives but it seems it does not.

I really don't understand the "take responsibility" "atone" argument. An eye for an eye? When someone rapes we do not rape the rapist. When someone lies we do not lie to that person. When someone beats someone up we do not beat up that person. It seems really weird to me to suggest that we should punish people in a similar way to their crime. We should punish people to discourage them from committing crimes. And as stated above, the death penalty has the reverse effect.

On the other hand I understand why individuals would want to kill the people that killed their loved ones. This is called revenge and it is understandable on a human individual level. If the state does not kill people then individuals, with feelings of revenge, may take it upon themselves to do the killing. The lady that lost three of her kids to a drunk driver said on Japanese TV that if the guy got out in any less than the maximum term she would kill him herself.

[hotaruika]

There is research on murder rates in Japan which shows that the seasonal adjusted monthly murder rater increases after death penalties are carried out. In other words the death penalty acts as the opposite of a deterent, as an encouragement. I think that it invokes in people a sense of bravado or perhaps just devaluse life.
If the research is accurate then with the current rate of executions, we should be in for a lot of violent crime.

I　think it is technique of statistics or lie.murderers kill victim with execution　NEWS？it's unrealistic.
I belive that death penarlty can dissuade crime（except a rare suicide） and repetition of an offense.

example;
one of burglars said "Becose　I don't want to puutted to death " that the reason of delivered himself to the police on a abduction and murder for burglar case in　Nagoya city of Aichi prefecture(愛知女性拉致殺害事件2007.8.24）.

[timtak]

hotaruika
I made a mistake about that research I refered to in the above post.
The research is not about the carrying out of executions but
publicising them (in newspapers etc). The authors argue
that this is directly related or effectively the same thing as
the executions themselves since the public only know about
them if they are publicised. The counted the number of words
and photos regarding executions in the Japanese press and looked
at violent crime in the two months following their publication and found
that there is more violent crime after executions are carried out.

You can read most of the research paper online,
http(colon)(slash)(slash)tinyurl(dot)com(slash)4pn 2bb

The authors write:
As shown in Table 15.2, the number of publicized affairs (they mean cases/jiken) and photographs had significantly positive effects on the number of homicides and that occured one and two months after publicity (they mean publication), respectively. This result suggests that the publicity of executions does not reduce the occurrence of homicide but augments it.
They conclude by saying....
these results imply that the abolishment of capital punishment will not
increase the homicide rate but decrease it. Therefore, retention of
capital punishment is not meaningful in Japan if its detterent effect is
the major reason for its retention. In Japan no studies have been
conducted to examine the effect of capital punishment, but public
opinion has supported the (supposed) deterrent effect and thus its
retention. Although the data of this study have limitions, we argue
that they are meaninful enough to make Japanese people consider
the lack of evidenence for public opinion. At present Japanese people
do not seem to have strong reasons for believing in the deterrent
effect of capital punishment.
If the death penalty were a deterent then one would think it would be a good idea to publicise the executions. But for some reason the Japanese keep their executions almost a secret. There is good reason for this. When the public hear that the goverment has killed someone, they are more likely to go and killl someone themselves. But perhaps the existance of a secret death penalty, that the public knows exists but is carried out in secret, would act as a deterent?
The example you state is where a criminal has admitted to his crime due to the existance of the death penalty, but not an instance where a crime has been prevented for this reason.
Despite the absense of evidence for the deterrent effect, people are being killed in its name. This is a pretty sad state of affairs.

[Dogen Z]

IMHO (In my humble opinion) rather than worrying about the criminal, more concern should be placed on the victims family and society at large. If the criminal has caused a irreparable crime, then he/she should forfeit his/her life. Death is natural so don't have a cow if the criminal's termination is accelerated. HIs/her life is not worth your consideration. He/she is just being eliminated as a cancer to society. Despite your beleifs about revenge, it brings some form of closure to the bereaved family and society at large. They could then move on with their lives with less of a burden.

BTW, I tthink that guy who killed those people in Akihabar should be hung as soon as possible.

[timtak]

If one cares about society at large, one will care about a reduction in the number of victims of violent crime.
If so, and the aforementioned research is correct, then the death penalty should be abolished.
This is the reference:
Akira Sakamoto, Kiyoko Sekiguchi, Aya Shinkyu, Yuko Okada (2003) "Does Media Coverage of Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect on the Occurence of Brutal Crimes? An Analysis of Japanese Time-Series Data from 1959 to 1990". in "Progress in Asian Social Psychology: Conceptual and Empirical Contributions" By Guoshu Yang, Paul B. Pedersen. Greenwood Publishing Group.
I agree that revenge gives closure to the victims, but to the rest of society, who could and do forget without seeking revenge, I think that the death penalty prelongs the attention given to the crime. Perhaps that is why it augments violent crime.

[Dogen Z]

A study that links executions to a rise in violent crime is comparable to the study that linked rises in the stock market to rises in women's hemlines. In both cases the conclusions are spurious. :D
In fact, I feel much calmer and less prone to violent crime when I know that mass murderers like the sarin gas attack perpetrators have been executed. :)

[General Lee]

It is never a good idea to kill your own people.

It would be more efficient to use them as free slave labor, as a living warning example to others thinking of repeating their crime.

Killing your own people would be wasteful and self-destructive.

[timtak]

Dear Ocean Dude

To me, it is rather the comparison between the hemline rule and the effect of the death penalty upon violent crime that seems suprious. While there was a relationship between hemlines and the economy, till the 1980's I believe no one proposed that hemlines were influencing the economy.

Many peole do believe however, that the death penalty has an effect upon violent crime. People believe in a deterrent effect.

But there is no research to support this belief, that I am aware of.

The converse relationship has however been found by empiracle research.

Ways in which the death penalty may *augment* violent crime are not difficult to imagine. Possible mechanisms include: a violent state encourages violent citizens, the death penalty devalues life, death penalty creates in criminals a sense of bravado or heroism, its them or me-ism, and the death penalty acts as form of surrogate suicide.

It *may* also be pertinent to note that in this period of a high rate of executions (due to the policy of the current law minister) there have already been three indiscriminate stabbings, one occuring yesterday, since I last posted.

Here are some indiscriminate stabbing cases from the Japanese wikipedia. The last one does not really belong on the list since noone died. But the culprit is still at large.

Fukakawa indiscriminate stabbing 17th June 1981
Ikebukuro indiscriminate stabbing 8th Septemeber 1999
Shimonoseki indiscriminate stabbing 29th September 1999
Fuzoku Ikeda Primary school stabbing 8th June 2001
Ibaraki serial killing (and indiscriminate at station) 22nd March 2008
Akihabara indiscriminate stabbing 8th June 2008
Oosaka Station random stabbing 22nd June 2008 (still at large)

The Ikebukuro and Shimonoseki cases occured in quick succession. I wonder if there had been many death penalties carried out at that time? I chekced. It seems that the law minister Jinnai authorised 3 death penalties to be carried out the day following the Ikebukuro stabbing, which is common practice.

This year there have been a large number of executions
3 executions on 1st February
4 executions on 10th April (shortly after the Ibaraki Incident)
3 executions on 16th June (shortly after Akihabara Incident)

The surrogate suicide motive - by killing people, the killer get his or herself killed by the state - seems to have been present in juniour school, the Shimonoseki and Akihabara killings. The Shimonoseki killings were partly a copy of the Ikebukuro killings. The Akihabara killings were very similar to those at Shimonoseki and on the same day as those at the school in Osaka. Additionally, all of these killings seem to have been framed as protest against society.

I hope that there are no more indicriminate stabbings. I think that abolishing the death penalty will help.

[Dogen Z]

I'm afraid I still have to disagree with you. Mere correlation does not prove cause and effect even with "implication" and what "many people believe." That's why sociologists have such a notoriously poor record on predicting social behavior. They cannot establish cause and effect.

This is just my opinion but maybe the researchers just picked the easiest ones to observe (or the one that they wanted to establish some kind of link. :okashii:) Furthermore, I seriously doubt that the criminals you refer to kept track of executions.

I don't think we can each other's opinion but thank you for letting me have my say. :relief:

[Revenant]

Most murderers can be divided into to very general categories, those that kill in rage, and those that kill in cold-blood. Those that kill in rage (for example, the hubby that comes home to find the wife with some guy) are probably not thinking rationally enough to take the possibility of the death penalty into account, and those that kill in cold-blood (gangsters, hitmen, etc) see the death penalty as even more reason to take extra measures not to be caught. I suppose that the death penalty deters a few people, but it doesn't seem terribly effective.

What I would rather see is those that kill imprisoned for life (literally) and studied by neuroscience. A lot of them have definite different wiring from the average person, and understanding these and other stuff we can get from studying them could help introduce some interventions to prevent as many murders happening.

I'm not sure about those that kill in rage though, as usually they never again commit another crime like that again. Perhaps they don't need to be imprisoned for life, but till we know more, perhaps it is safer to keep them there.

[timtak]

I agree that correlation does not prove cause and effect.
As I was reading about prior violent crimes I became aware that the Ministry of Justice deliberately carries out executions after violent crime.
Hence,
1) If violent crime has a causal effect upon other violent crime (via "copycat killings") then the deliberate existance of executions after violent crimes may not be the cause (of copycat killings) at all. Rather the existance of the previous violent crime may be the cause, interspersed with irrelevant, non-causal executions.
2) If violent crime has a tendency to come in sprees due to other factors, such as the weather (a hot summer) or the economy (a depression) then the deliberate existance of executions after violent crimes may not be the cause of subsequent killings at all, rather the weather or economy may have been the cause, interspersed with irrelevant, non-causal executions.
At the very least however, there appears to be no demonstration of the deterrent effect of the death penalty.
What does it matter?
The death, at the hands of the state, of killers is perhaps not something that we should trouble ourselves about. "They deserved to die," people argue.
For me I do care about even the evil/depraved being killed. Their death should have a positive effect upon society for it to be desirable.
I do care that there may be an augmentative effect (though as you point out, it is not proven).
I think that the only persuasive justification for the death penalty is the presumed deterrent effect. But where is the evidence?
And the other arguements again
1) Retributive, "Eye for an eye" justice - I don't agree. It is IMHO naive. We could, but we do not, rape rapists for the good reason that we do not approve of rape.
2) Revenge. I sympathise with those families of victims who want revenge. I might want to seek revenge. But is revenge something that the state should be doing? Revenge is an emotion I feel but it is something that if I could overcome I would and not want to perform myself, far less have the state do it for me. If the death penalty is revenge, then I think at least it should be framed in those terms.
Show me deterrence and I will support the death penalty.
The deterrent effect is not proven. The only (weak as you point out) evidence I can find is for the reverse.
Hence, until I can find some evidence for deterrence, I will not be in favour of killing criminals.
It seems to me that the assumption that the death penalty deters violent crime is while very plausible (I presumed so myself), unsupported by evidence.

[Astroboy]

The death penalty is an abomination.
Nobody would argue that any legal system is infallible. Therefore it follows that supporters of the death penalty are willing to see significant numbers of innocent, wrongly convicted people killed to satiate their sense of justice/revenge.
I voted Yes by the way.

The death penalty is an necessary evil. Instead of arguing abolishment of death penalty, better argue about respect the human rights of crime victims.

[Sukotto]

Yes. But not because I said so.

The US should get rid of the death penalty too.

killing people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong.
how's that?

[Astroboy]

Yes. But not because I said so.
The US should get rid of the death penalty too.
killing people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong.
how's that?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Wakisashi-sepukku-p1000699.jpg/180px-Wakisashi-sepukku-p1000699.jpg

While the voluntary seppuku described above is the best known form, in practice the most common form of seppuku was obligatory seppuku, used as a form of capital punishment for disgraced samurai, especially for those who committed a serious offense such as unprovoked murder, robbery, corruption, or treason. The samurai were generally told of their offense in full and given a set time to commit seppuku, usually before sunset on a given day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku

The reason why Japanese believe it's necessary is that it is a part of our tradition/culture. Living with shame is intolerable/more shameful in a way.

[Sukotto]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Wakisashi-sepukku-p1000699.jpg/180px-Wakisashi-sepukku-p1000699.jpg
The reason why Japanese believe it's necessary is that it is a part of our tradition/culture. Living with shame is intolerable/more shameful in a way.

Given this, one could argue the death penalty would be a punishment in one gets off easy. That it would be more of a penalty to live with the shame.
Of course, it would also depend upon the person getting punished, I suppose.
Whether they internalize the shame in question. No?

In the US some do argue against the death penalty in that having to live for life in prison is a harsher punishment than the death penalty.

The death penalty puts the state at a higher level or one worth more than human beings that create it. Governments are expendable, people are not.

[Astroboy]

Given this, one could argue the death penalty would be a punishment in one gets off easy. That it would be more of a penalty to live with the shame.
Of course, it would also depend upon the person getting punished, I suppose.
Whether they internalize the shame in question. No?

In the US some do argue against the death penalty in that having to live for life in prison is a harsher punishment than the death penalty.

The death penalty puts the state at a higher level or one worth more than human beings that create it. Governments are expendable, people are not.

Partly agree. Seppuku was much better than Living with shame, meaning honor was saved at least. So theoretically death penalty is less painful than lifetime prison.
But problem is ... we don't see any Samurai here, who understands "shame".

[grapefruit]

But problem is ... we don't see any Samurai here, who understands "shame".
I agree. Besides, the description that Japanese society heavily focuses on the concept of "shame" stems from values held by ruling people in the samurai class. It might not be a true value that people from other classes like farmers held.

Later studies maintain that Benedict’s argument that Japanese society's heavy emphasis on "shame" was partly a product of US propaganda during WWII and kind of obsolete. Recent views on the validity of Benedict's claims are negative.:relief:


In the US some do argue against the death penalty in that having to live for life in prison is a harsher punishment than the death penalty.
I cannot agree. In abstract thinking it might sound right, but when one really faces choice between death and alive, many surely prefer being alive.

[tada]

I may be more liberal than conservative, but the death penalty is one conservative idea I agree with. Not because of the "eye for an eye" crap, but there are a lot of repeat offenders, and I don't want someone like that out on the streets again.

Besides, Japan still has some of the world's lowest crime rates. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

As grapefruit said, when it comes down to it many prefer being alive rather than dead. So a lot of people would probably be more scared of being executed than spending some time in jail.

[Sukotto]

I cannot agree. In abstract thinking it might sound right, but when one really faces choice between death and alive, many surely prefer being alive.

I am saying not what a convicted person might want to face,

but some say: "Let them rot in prison."