Debate on death penalty rekindled

Sunday 30th March, 04:09 AM JST

By Keiji Hirano

TOKYO —

Masahiko Fujita cannot forget the day he pushed the switch to open the floor of a gallows and hang an inmate three years after becoming an officer at the Osaka Detention House in 1973.

“Five officers pressed five red buttons simultaneously to make it unclear who had really operated the system,” Fujita, 61, said at his home in Akashi, Hyogo Prefecture.

An expensive lunch was served following the hanging to reward them for their duties, “but nobody talked while eating,” he said. “I couldn’t remain calm, so I went out to play pachinko. But I lost the 3,000-yen execution benefit immediately.”

The debate over capital punishment has been rekindled in Japan recently, particularly following Justice Minister Yukio Hatoyama’s controversial remarks last year that executions should be carried out automatically without an order from the justice minister.

Underlining this aggressive stance, he ordered the hanging of six inmates between December and February, a period during which the U.N. General Assembly approved a resolution calling for a moratorium on capital punishment.

Executions have been increasing in Japan, with nine inmates hanged in 2007, compared with four in 2006, one in 2005, two in 2004, one in 2003, and two in 2002 and 2001.

Looking back on his first experience of involvement in an execution, Fujita, now retired, said, “I felt we did not have to hang an obedient old man in his 70s, but I knew through his documents that he had committed really vicious crimes so I could press the button on behalf of the victims and their families.”

Fujita supports the death penalty as he believes it contributes to public security and the interests of crime victims, and said he approves of Hatoyama’s stance on executions.

But he said he considers Hatoyama’s remarks “imprudent” because he believes it is the justice minister’s responsibility to issue an execution order as this is the ultimate punishment.

Meanwhile, campaigners against the death penalty are concerned that the recent moves suggest the arrival of the age of “mass executions” prior to the introduction of a citizen judge system next year.

Under the new system, six lay judges will examine serious criminal cases, such as murder, together with three professional judges to decide whether a defendant is guilty or not and hand down a sentence. A verdict can be reached by a majority vote.

In the face of growing public sentiment seeking tougher penalties following a series of vicious murder cases, a group of bipartisan lawmakers opposing the death penalty are now working to compile a package of bills aimed at setting strict rules on handing down death sentences under the citizen judge system.

“Our bill will require a death sentence to be handed down only by a unanimous vote of nine judges, not by a majority vote,” said Nobuto Hosaka, who serves as the secretary general of the Japan Parliamentary League against the Death Penalty.

The 70-member group also aims to revise the criminal code to introduce life imprisonment without parole. The lawmakers expect their proposals to curb the increase in death sentences.

“We are planning to submit the package of bills to the ongoing Diet session so we could prevent Japan from becoming an ‘execution superpower,”’ said Hosaka, a House of Representatives member of the Social Democratic Party. “It is unacceptable that Japan should turn its back on the U.N. resolution.”

Japan has faced international criticism over its execution system, with the U.N. Committee against Torture seeking the immediate introduction of an execution moratorium in May last year.

Death-row inmates are put in solitary confinement in principle and their length of time on death row exceeds 30 years in some cases. Inmates are also only notified of their execution a few hours beforehand.

Given such circumstances, the committee noted, “The unnecessary secrecy and arbitrariness surrounding the time of the execution” and “the psychological strain imposed upon inmates and families by the constant uncertainty of the date of the execution” could be considered torture.

International society is moving toward the termination of the death penalty, with 135 countries abolishing or effectively terminating it, while only 62 countries, including Japan, have maintained it as of January, according to Amnesty International.

But the Japanese government indicated in its fifth periodic report to a U.N. human rights panel, which will examine it later this year, that death-row inmates are treated appropriately.

“Imposing the death penalty on those who have committed extremely heinous crimes and whose criminal responsibility is extremely grave cannot be avoided, and abolishing the death penalty is not appropriate,” the report said.

It also showed the government is reluctant to introduce a life sentence without parole as “the personality of the inmate may be completely destroyed through lifelong confinement.”

Countering the government’s argument, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations submitted its own report to the U.N. panel seeking suspension of executions, saying, “To continue capital punishment under the current circumstances violates” the international covenant on civil and political rights.

“We expect the U.N. panel to come out with a recommendation in line with that of the Committee against Torture so that Japan will have to inevitably suspend executions,” said Tokyo-based lawyer Maiko Tagusari, who worked on drafting the JFBA’s report.

The largest lawyers’ group also compiled a bill this month for temporarily suspending executions and establishing research panels on the death penalty in both chambers of the Diet, which will examine the overall system concerning capital punishment in Japan.

Fujita, a staunch supporter of death penalty, said he could accept its abolition if people in Japan “discuss the issue based on sufficient information, not on armchair theories, and the majority of them approve termination.”

“The introduction of a life sentence, for example, will lead to rise in the number of prisoners, and it will inevitably increase the burdens, and possibly dangers, on prison officers,” he said. “Increasing the number of wardens, who work under tough conditions even now, would be necessary. That’s why I have started speaking out.”

› Login to comment

12 Comments

Scrote at 09:21 AM JST - 30th March

The government is reluctant to introduce a life sentence without parole as “the personality of the inmate may be completely destroyed through lifelong confinement.”

And a good hanging doesn't destroy the personality?

The government should not have the power to determine who lives and who dies.
cosmo13 at 12:04 PM JST - 30th March

For me I prefer death than living the rest of my lifetime locked in some prison knowing I'll never get out or see a street again, in this case I say death is merciful. And come on, those who r sentened to death are supposed to be criminals, murderes, heartless dangerous people, not innocent misjudged people.
Patrick Smash at 12:19 PM JST - 30th March

The Japanese "justice" system will continue to convict and string up innocent people. It's quite amazing the number of people who think this is okay. The prisons here are full of innocent people, and no government should be able to decide who livs and who dies. That only 62 countries on earth still even have this sentence, and most of those don't practice it, basically says it all. Only 20 countries carried out a death sentence last year. Have a look at the names and you really get the full picture, and the company Japan likes to keep.

The countries in which verifiable executions took place during 2007 were :

Afghanistan America * Bangladesh Belarus Botswana China Ethiopia Indonesia Iran Iraq Japan Kuwait North Korea Pakistan Saudi Arabia Singapore Somalia Sudan Syria Yemen

Most people would only consider one or two of these to be modern civilised societies, with anything even resembling a criminal justice system.

Your honours, I rest my case.
VOR at 12:41 PM JST - 30th March

As long as the justice system gets the conviction right, I don't give a crap how they snuff out the life of the criminal; life in prison or death.

The victim's immediate family should have final say so not the bleeding hearts who can't seem to help themselves from meddling where they don't belong.

Allow the victims loved ones, the father, the mother, husband, wife or child to decide the murderer's fate.
kaminarioyaji at 01:40 PM JST - 30th March

"The introduction of a life sentence, for example, will lead to rise in the number of prisoners"

"...nine inmates hanged in 2007, compared with four in 2006, one in 2005, two in 2004, one in 2003, and two in 2002 and 2001"

So it won`t increase by much then...
Scrote at 02:56 PM JST - 30th March

cosmo13: I wonder if you would prefer death over life imprisonment if you were to find yourself fitted up by the police for a crime you didn't commit?

Life imprisonment offers the possibility for miscarriages of justice to be put right, even though the police never seem to be punished in such cases.
DubyaKiller at 04:57 PM JST - 30th March

The death penalty, and those victims families who demand the death penalty here (not that I have ever been in that terrible scenario), is not helping society in Japan. Japanese society needs to learn why certain crimes are carried out (the violent murder of 3 family members/ the recent train station stabbing spree/ the guy pushed under a train by an 18 year old/ the little kids stabbed to death in Osaka etc). So why not refuse to carry out anymore capital punishment and instead put these criminals through analysis and a phsyciatric programme to try and find out what made them kill, whilst they serve life sentences in jail ? Maybe then we can get a little nearer to being able to recognise warning signs in advance. Even if the programme ends up saving 1 life, then it would have been worth it. And it would have a slightly better epitath if tragic deaths such as these then result in someone being protected in the future.
keech2 at 07:49 PM JST - 30th March

cosmos and VOR, you are both assuming that criminal justice system never makes mistakes and as some recent cases such as the gentleman in Toyama has shown, the system often make mistakes. If the life on one unjustly convicted person is saved than banning capital punishment is worth all possible monetary costs. Now, if you could convince me that no innocent person could ever be convicted and executed, then I quite possibly would change my mind. If the murder by the state of one unjustly convicted innocent was proven, would that change your minds?
cosmo13 at 06:18 AM JST - 31st March

keech2

I admit assuming that there wouldn't be misjudges, what I say is that weak evidence are not supposed to be considered when applying such a penalty, if your point is that we cannot garantee ultimate justice then I agree with you.
greenteaonsens at 09:58 AM JST - 31st March

It is only natural to want to kill someone who has harmed you or your loved ones. Killing certain scumbags is a benefit to the rest of society. End of.
fireant at 10:30 AM JST - 31st March

Killing certain scumbags does Not benefit the rest of society. It benefits those who were wronged by the scumbag. Locking the scumbag up for the rest of his life would benefit society in that he wouldn't be able to harm anyone else - except those in jail - and 'society' wouldn't be burdened with - possibly - killing innocent people.

By the argument that capital punishment benefits society, Texas would be the best place to live in the US and China the best place to live in the world. However, if you are poor or black or poor and black in Texas, you have a much higher chance of being executed than if you were rich or white or rich and white. Hmm.
keech2 at 12:59 PM JST - 31st March

cosmo, it would be nice if weak evidence wasn't used to convict people, but it often is And, here in the land of 23 days of questioning and forced confessions, I'm sure that there are many innocent people sitting in prison and on death row. greenteaonsens, I agree. Killing, or wanting to kill, someone who murders a family member is a natural reaction. Then that person's family can kill you and so on and so on. As fireant pointed out, the death penalty does not stop criminals and it has been proven that pretty much the poor are much more likely to receive the death penalty. The system is not fair and certainly not just.