Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
A little over two years ago, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) wrested power from the LDP, with an election manifesto full of promises of ambitious social reforms, many of which seemingly have been dropped for a wide variety of reasons, the 3/11 triple disaster among them.
But even before 3/11, the DPJ managed to confound its more “progressive” supporters when Justice Minister Keiko Chiba took the unprecedented step of ordering hangings, and then actually attending two of them. She claimed that even though she was against the death penalty, it was her responsibility to confirm the experience with her own eyes.
The condemned were anything but lovable characters.
Kazuo Shonozwa burned six women to death after robbing a jewelry store and setting it on fire in Utsunomiya in 2000.
The other was a former gangster who was found guilty of killing a 28-year-old man in Kumagaya at the behest of his 16-year-old girlfriend over a relationship problem, then abducting three female witnesses, strangling one of them and seriously injuring the others.
Chiba, formerly a member of the Parliamentary League Against the Death Penalty, said after the execution: “I think it will be something for this country’s people to decide, if after various discussions, the majority of the public opinion is for the death penalty to be abolished.”
Support for the death penalty in Japan is exceptionally high, even compared to that of the United States. According to a recent government poll, 85% of the population support it -- 20 percentage points higher than in the U.S.
Chiba’s argument seemed to be that by authorizing the executions, it would force debate and as a consequence, people would be able to reconsider the issue.
Although Chiba's logic seems twisted, there actually is some substance to it.
In 1972, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Marshall theorized that the public was uninformed about the death penalty and that more information would change people’s opinions. Subsequent studies have proven that different types of information can have varying effects on people’s support of capital punishment, often reducing it significantly.
So was Chiba simply trying to bait the media and politicians to get a public discussion started? And if so, what good was it picking such loathsome characters? And how was her case helped by comments by surviving relatives of the victims that appeared in media describing the sense of catharsis and relief they had after the execution?
According to a report that appeared in the Yomiuri, the husband of the store manager who was burned to death in the jewelry store case said, "I feel relieved. He committed such a serious crime. I wanted him to pay for it as soon as possible. I feel it's finally over, but why did it take so long?”
Reports mentioned that the youngest person killed in the same incident had just married half a year earlier. The mother of the victim described how she had wanted to watch the culprit hang. “I want to tell my daughter that it's finally been done,” she said.
Another surviving relative used the world “natural course” to describe the hanging.
While many articles pointed to “anger” and “disappointment” by Amnesty International, there was very little talk about how those particular two individuals offered any argument against the death penalty. Japanese constitutional law doesn’t prescribe automatic capital punishment for first-degree murder; rather it’s reserved for exceptionally brutal cases, with consideration of the opinion of the victims' families and public impact. Those guys were poster children for that particular system.
Of course, articles could have mentioned that Shonozawa’s lawyer attempted to argue that he was mentally incompetent at the time of the murder – but, really, how much of the public would fall for a “Classic Clarence Darrow?” Few, actually. That’s why, when Darrow argued his famous Loeb and Leopold case, he pleaded his clients guilty, so they’d stand trial before a judge, not a jury.
Leob and Leopold were two wealthy college students, who in 1924 in an effort to commit the perfect crime and a murder for thrill’s sake, bludgeoned a 14-year-old-boy to death in Chicago, then doused his remains with hydrochloric acid to make identification difficult.
Darrow, in their defense, gave a passionate 12-hour attack on the death penalty. He argued they did what they did because of innate compulsions they were incapable of resisting. He blamed society, human nature, hormones, anything but their free will. Furthermore, he brought psychiatrists as witnesses and claimed that despite their brilliance, they were emotionally stunted. In the end, the judge did not buy into Darrow’s claim that they were insane, but softened up enough to spare their lives and sent them to jail instead.
In the years since, countless defense attorneys around the world have tried the classic “mental incompetence” maneuver. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. When it works, often the fallout is hardened public support of the death penalty. Simply put: People don’t like it when bad guys get off either easy or on petty technicalities. On the other hand, opponents of the death penalty argue that individuals who are mentally incompetent, even handicapped are routinely put to death – a practice entirely against norms of international law.
There are plenty of other arguments too. I have my own. I don’t like bureaucrats and individuals whose careers depend on them having the power over life and death. Justice is never achieved when politics and blood thirst are joined in marriage.
That said, once again, the death penalty is in the news in Japan. The Aum verdicts have been sealed. Unrelated, 13 parliamentarians have called for public debate after a series of high profile acquittals and retrials, and the Japan Bar Association has announced the establishment of a panel to review the death penalty.
But is it headed out the door?
My guess is not. Thirteen out of 722 parliamentarians is not an overwhelming number… nor is 15% of the general public.
Still, the discussion may lead to reforms and in the process, get a dialogue going which may very well have consequences at some distant point in the future. How far, only heaven knows.
© Japan Today
16 Comments
Login to comment
theeastisred
Capital punishment is not a deterrent, it is irreversible in the case of error (extremely likely in Japan given the universal practice of forced confessions in place of evidence), and most importantly it reduces society and all of us to the same level as the murderer by making us all killers. Life imprisonment is by far the better option, as has been concluded by all 'advanced' countries except the US (most states) and Japan. Unfortunately it is never seriously debated or discussed in Japan, any more than it is in China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran or those other enlightened countries wedded to the rule of law.
The Munya Times
Killing or imprisonment solves nothing just make things worse, even if justified by human-made law.
The worst killers or criminals can be asset to our societies at the right place. It's our society who makes them killers, criminals disobedient and any punishment, although put fears in them, will make them more desperate, sophisticated and will justify their crimes or revenge in their eyes.
I know it sounds nonsense for many readers let me illustrate with a sample.
A hundred years old gentle and fine brandy is a terrific value in your glass and an unwanted muck, stain if you drop it on your shirt or necktie. The sand is a cosseting gentle silky pleasure under your feet at the sunny golden beach but muck and hazard if the wind blows it into your eyes. Aren't we talking about the same objects? The same sand, the same brandy, the same man the same criminal.
It's just things should fall back to their place.
Murder is a crime whoever executes. Imprisonment is a crime by the law for it is the deprivation of personal freedom and human rights whoever executes. Retaliating for murder with murder, for crime with crime?
Fighting fire with fire? We burn down our own world, our only shelter in the universe.
southsakai
You make a very good point and your comments make a lot of sense especially about the "case of error" but for victims of murder and their families in almost all cases, they will think very much differently.
Capital punishment shouldn't be used as a deterrent, instead it's purpose should be to deliver equal justice.
gaijinfo
Prison and capital punishment serve the same purpose. To remove bad people from society. It's not intended to punish, deter future criminals, or rehabilitate old ones, neither to make any victims "feel" better.
Life imprisonment, therefore, serves the same purpose as capital punishment.
As to which is better, I would suggest whichever method is a lesser burden to the taxpayer.
borscht
Landsberg brought up Leopold and Leob while Munya Times brought up...something.
Not condoning his killing of Bobby Franks but here is what would not have happened if Leopold was executed:
He spent his years after being released helping other people. He even said, "Helping others has become my chief hobby--it's how I get my kicks." However, he was also remorseful about killing Franks. Is Asahara Shoko remorseful? Was Shonozwa remorseful?
Can an elected politician determine the future of a criminal?
Also, his parents were rich enough to hire the best lawyer in the country whose job it was to keep him alive; at this, Darrow succeeded using the 'extenuating circumstances' defense.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/leoploeb/Accountoftrial.html and http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/leoploeb/LEO_LEOP.HTM
nath
The Leopold and Loeb case wasn't a trial, it was just a hearing, and so Darrow did not present an insanity defense, which is where in a trial, the defense argues that their client is not criminally responsible for the act, and so is not guilty. Leopold and Loeb entered guilty pleas and Darrow presented evidence of his clients' mental immaturity (not incompetence) to avoid a possible death sentence. The judge did sentence the pair to life plus 99 years, avoiding the death penalty mostly because they were both teenagers at the time they committed the murder, according to the judge. Loeb was stabbed to death in jail, but Leopold was released on parole after 33 years. The Leopold and Loeb case didn't start the mental incompetence or insanity defense, which has been around for centuries before this.
Larry Tucker
Leopold had a long life an enjoyed his successes. His victim had no such opportunity. Leopold was rewarded for his deed. It is not possible to determine how much deterrence is provided by the death penalty. No one can wind back the clock and relive a test period of time with the death penalty the first time through history and without a death penalty the second to determine that. We are left with meaningless arguments.
It comes down to perfecting the science to prove guilt without doubt in each murder case.
The Munya Times
Ironically enough the Leopold and Loeb case or any similar cases might as well themselves constitute a barrier to find a sound solution for the issue of lethal punishment until the question is only seen seen from the perspective of the law and legislation.
In my understanding @borscht in his post did not remotely intend to consider this case as a possible measurement or subject to further discussion on lethal punishment, he simply offered a sample to support his stand on this issue, that he highlighted by writing:
In my understanding he was talking about giving them, and so, to ourselves a chance before we killing someone. And he made this very clear by starting his post saying.
I think his post was clear and sound.
And I think a human life has more value than what the blind, dogmatic and continuously changing law, (by historical periods and countries own culture) court trial fights and tactic, involving money and lawyers skill can ever decide about.
My opinion is, that we are all one human civilization and we are in the same boat and better not to rock the boat and find better solution than killing unless we want to sink the boat.
theeastisred
but for victims of murder and their families in almost all cases, they will think very much differently.
That is true. And no doubt I would also feel differently if it were my relative who had been murdered. But I think people in that position are by definition so emotionally tied up in the situation that they are not in the best position to consider things rationally. The decisions should be made by society in general, or its representatives, i.e. legislators, upon consideration of all aspects of the matter.
miyazawa3
The superior nations Americans, china, carry out death penalty.
In religion.... Christian, Muslims , Hindu , Jews, Buddhist.. countrys carry out death penalty,
What is wrong with Japan ?
borscht
Miyazawa3
In religion:
India, the largest Hindu nation on the planet, has capital punishment but has used it very rarely: 52 times in 63 years.
Israel, the one Jewish nation on the planet, doesn't have capital punishment.
Europe, titular 'Christian' countries, does not have capital punishment (Latvia will abolish it next year.).
South America, made up of mostly 'Christian' countries, does not have capital punishment except for certain cases.
In Africa, a continent of Christian, Moslem, and other religions, 75% of the countries either don't have it or don't enforce it. Libya and Somalia are the most active with 18 in 2011 (vs the US with 46).
'Superior' countries with capital punishment include Libya, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, North Korea, China, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Syria, Vietnam, Yemen, Belarus, Taiwan, Japan, and the US.
LH10
dude kill off all the nut case in japan and around the world. why keep them in prison?
jonobugs
I consider myself to be a bit neutral in regards to capital punishment. I can see both sides of the argument and I agree with both sides.
I think the fundamental difference in regards to capital punishment seems to stem more from the fact that there is no absolute certainty of guilt for abolitionists. Most of the cases which are brought up tend to be where guilt of the prisoner tends to be in doubt. In which case, just the fact that the person is in jail is horrific. I believe that these arguments won't win any new people over as they speak more about the system, than the individual.
Another point is to address or show that people can and do change and that they may still yet contribute positively to society. That's a hard line to swallow as well, since death-row inmates have taken lives. Whose to say that the lives they stole would not have contributed even more?
Although I'm not convinced taking lives is the answer, abolitionists have yet to use a convincing argument in my opinion.
ExRand
Fine with me as long as it applies to politicians as well.