Should Japan abolish the Death Penalty?

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.

Taiko666 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

timtak said:

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.

Click to expand...

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）.

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)4pn2bb

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.

Misplaced Empathy

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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. ) 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.

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.

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.

Taiko666 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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?

Sukotto said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.
Seppuku - Wikipedia

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.

Astroboy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Sukotto said:

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.

Click to expand...

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".

Astroboy said:

But problem is ... we don't see any Samurai here, who understands "shame".

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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 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.

grapefruit said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

There is an idea "Society gave human rights,but life is given by god" as grounds of the abolition of capital punishment. But, this is an idea of the Christianity.
If executing the death sentence with the culture of Japan, the button of the capital punishment should pushe by the condemned for thier honor.

Death penalty, what is this, the medieval age?

I think this is wrong.