News Former PM Abe assassinated during campaign speech in Nara

[Mansoor]

Hello. sir

Blood is the right of a family (regardless of the modern jurisdiction). Juries are not the side of blood, they are a legal committee that follows the request of a family in this case. They are only agents of investigation, interrogation, proof of the crime and execution; and it is the family that finally determines, what the lawmen must do with the murderer (forgiveness, blood money, execution).

Of course, in some cases, the court can interfere in the adventure, when a murder affect badly in the society (like assassinating Mr. Abe). Here, if even the family forgive the assassin, the court can determine a few years imprisonment for the criminal.

Nevertheless, as you showed some Japanese court rulings about murdering, it is different with the standard that I expressed. The significant difference is that, the Japanese judiciary appoints itself instead of the rightful family of the victim. In many cases, this replacement ( not only in Japan) can bring something up opposite to the family's petition and plea.

 

[thomas]

Only a few, and not even all, Islamic jurisdictions consider the family's forgiveness. In no other jurisdiction does "forgiveness" constitute (primarily) mitigating circumstances. Modern jurisdictions treat murder as a crime against society or the state, not as a private matter! Ideally, we are all equal before the law, and similar crimes should have similar legal consequences. Thank God, "blood" is no longer a family's right, but it might still play a role in the realm of family feud or similar antiquated and illegal (!) social context (mafia vendetta, Albanian feuds, etc.).

 

[mdchachi]

Hello. sir

Blood is the right of a family (regardless of the modern jurisdiction). Juries are not the side of blood, they are a legal committee that follows the request of a family in this case. They are only agents of investigation, interrogation, proof of the crime and execution; and it is the family that finally determines, what the lawmen must do with the murderer (forgiveness, blood money, execution).

Of course, in some cases, the court can interfere in the adventure, when a murder affect badly in the society (like assassinating Mr. Abe). Here, if even the family forgive the assassin, the court can determine a few years imprisonment for the criminal.

Nevertheless, as you showed some Japanese court rulings about murdering, it is different with the standard that I expressed. The significant difference is that, the Japanese judiciary appoints itself instead of the rightful family of the victim. In many cases, this replacement ( not only in Japan) can bring something up opposite to the family's petition and plea.

Yes, exactly. Japan (and the U.S.) law doesn't work that way. Sometimes they do what the family wants and sometimes they don't. Sometimes the family doesn't agree among themselves. Victims' wishes are considered, but as part of a broader set of factors, not as the deciding element. In both Japan and most Western nations, criminal law is fundamentally structured as a matter between the state and the accused, rather than between the victim (or their family) and the perpetrator. This approach is rooted in the belief that crimes disrupt public order and societal norms, not just individual interests. As such, the state assumes responsibility for prosecution and sentencing, aiming to uphold justice, deter crime, and ensure fairness, rather than to deliver personal retribution or satisfaction to victims' families. So, as you say, the results may not align with the family's wishes.

 

[Mansoor]

Murder and wounding (generally hurting) deliberately are connected to the victims' families. If the target remains alive, he himself is responsible for his rights, and if he dies, his family decides what to do with his rights (through law).
In any society, if someone kills another deliberately, it will be an individual crime, not a social one, although its news has emotional effects on the larger society.

A family itself is a small society with all its legal rights, options, and customs, apart from other families and the whole society, because they are related in blood and genes. So, a government or judiciary system cannot meddle in that family's choice and rights, unless the action of that family endangers the rights of a part of society or the whole.

That small society (family) can decide about the properties and rights of one of its dead or killed members, just like the family's right to the heritage of one of its members. The judiciary system or other legal organizations can not interfere in this right of the family, except for managing and legitimizing the inheritance. In this case, blood is not different with heritage, and it is relative to a family's right not a government or court.

 

[mdchachi]

Murder and wounding (generally hurting) deliberately are connected to the victims' families. If the target remains alive, he himself is responsible for his rights, and if he dies, his family decides what to do with his rights (through law).
In any society, if someone kills another deliberately, it will be an individual crime, not a social one, although its news has emotional effects on the larger society.

A family itself is a small society with all its legal rights, options, and customs, apart from other families and the whole society, because they are related in blood and genes. So, a government or judiciary system cannot meddle in that family's choice and rights, unless the action of that family endangers the rights of a part of society or the whole.

That small society (family) can decide about the properties and rights of one of its dead or killed members, just like the family's right to the heritage of one of its members. The judiciary system or other legal organizations can not interfere in this right of the family, except for managing and legitimizing the inheritance. In this case, blood is not different with heritage, and it is relative to a family's right not a government or court.

Yes we understand that is how it works in your country. What do you do when there is disagreement among the family? The more senior person (closest heir) can decide? For example, the father? The wife?

 

[Mansoor]

I researched on the Persian webs and found the answer ( I summarized it) :

All those who are the heir of the killed person are rightful to request the court to issue one of the three verdicts ( forgiveness, blood money, execution) except his wife, though she is one of the heirs ( because she is not from the family's lineage). So, the killed person's father, mother, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters are the owner of blood.

If some of the family request the court to execute the murderer and some request blood money; those who have demanded execution have to pay the share of the other members, who requested blood money, afterward, the killer will be executed.

 

[thomas]

Lawyers for Tetsuya Yamagami, the man accused of killing former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, are expected to argue that the attack grew out of what they describe as religious abuse within his family, rather than being an act of political violence, according to people familiar with the case. Yamagami, who is 45, is due to stand trial at the Nara District Court in October. His defence team is expected to emphasise that his actions were driven by anger over the financial strain caused by his mother's heavy donations to the Unification Church, now officially known as the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification.

Prosecutors will likely insist that the focus should remain on the gravity of the crime itself and maintain that it would be misguided to place too much weight on the role of the religious group. It will all depend on how the court weighs the connection between Yamagami's family background and the shooting.

The defense lawyers believe that Yamagami's background should be appropriately considered in the sentencing phase. So, they asked a religious scholar to analyze his upbringing through interviews with him. The scholar concluded that the case falls into "neglect," one of the four types of child abuse related to religious beliefs as defined by the health ministry. The mother had donated so much that there was no money left for education and even traveled to South Korea for religious activities, leaving her children at home. Based on this analysis, the defense team plans to argue in court that Yamagami's grudge against the religious group stemmed from "religious abuse" by his mother. They also plan to further assert that Yamagami targeted Abe because of his deep connections with the church, including sending congratulatory telegrams and video messages. The team will likely emphasize that the crime originated from Yamagami's personal grudge and that he didn't have any political motive. The team has asked to call five witnesses to the stand in court, including the scholar, Yamagami's mother and his sister.

Defense team to claim 'religious abuse' prompted Abe's slaying | The Asahi Shimbun: Breaking News, Japan News and Analysis

 

[Lothor]

Tetsuya Yamagami, the man accused of Abe's assassination, admits to all charges.

https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=the%20asahi%20shimbun%20asia%20%26%20japan%20watch

 

[Achilles 1-1]

Tetsuya Yamagami, the man accused of Abe's assassination, admits to all charges.

https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=the%20asahi%20shimbun%20asia%20%26%20japan%20watch