Wednesday February 15, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Are you in favor of the death penalty?

Poll Jun. 21, 2008 - 09:58PM JST ( 27 )

Order by Time Order by Popularity

27 Comments

0

aomorisamuraiJun. 21, 2008 - 10:35PM JST

All these people against the DP, why? If the crime is heinous enough and we can prove the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, why not?
0

aomorisamuraiJun. 21, 2008 - 10:42PM JST

Actually, perfect example; Tomohiro Kato doesn't deserve to die?
0

pathatJun. 21, 2008 - 10:54PM JST

Are you in favor of the death penalty?

There are some cases when the worst criminals deserve to be executed. For example, I hope there is a noose with Shoko Asahara`s name on it, as soon as his appeals have been exhausted.
0

BettingJun. 21, 2008 - 11:40PM JST

"There are some cases when the worst criminals deserve to be executed".

But that will always be a matter of opinion, some people are just, pardon the pun, dead set against it no matter what, for various reasons. I'm against it for two reasons: 1) Once the person is dead their "punishment" is finished and; 2) There have been cases where innocent people have been executed, these people can not be brought back. This is especially a worry in a country like Japan with its extremely high conviction rate.
0

0labyrinth0Jun. 21, 2008 - 11:41PM JST

Why not? Are you crazy? You're just thinking the same thing that Kato was thinking before hitting some random people. "Why not?" At least he added that he was tired of life.
0

ColignyJun. 22, 2008 - 12:26AM JST

Death penalty is an easy exit. And if justice got it wrong kinda impossible to reverse... It's somewhat barbaric... well fitting into japanese society in fact... subtlety is still scarce up here...
0

rajakumarJun. 22, 2008 - 02:24AM JST

****Abolish death penalty in japan. Japan can afford its prison expenses, unlike poorer,**** ****more economically weaker conditions, in, other desperado nations.****
0

cleoJun. 22, 2008 - 02:35AM JST

Are you in favor of the death penalty?

Of course not.

Whether multi-murderers and creeps like Kato and Miyazaki 'deserve' to die or not is totally beside the point. We're all going to die, whether we 'deserve' it or not. Decent, law-abiding people do not deserve to die with the blood of others on their hands - which is what we have if we approve of our tax yen being used to kill.
0

aomorisamuraiJun. 22, 2008 - 03:37AM JST

"Decent, law-abiding people do not deserve to die with the blood of others on their hands - which is what we have if we approve of our tax yen being used to kill."

Are you talking about the prison employees involved in killing a person on death row? I would love that job. You could see first-hand someone getting what they actually deserve.

And for the record, the "blood on your hands" meaningless. What if you killed someone in self defense? Yeah...
0

some14someJun. 22, 2008 - 07:05AM JST

Abolish death penalty in japan. Japan can afford its prison expenses

No, Japan can not. Perhaps your assumption is based on the fact that Japan is world's second largest economy but it is 'paper' economy. Practically Japan has hardly anything to offer to its people. Now, the cell facility that accomodates death row inmates has the capacity for 60 persons only, whereas more that 100 are dumped inside. Japan will never feed these criminals for life-time, otherwise millions more would prefer to live inside jails than to be jobless/homeless. Looking at the crime rate i am in favour of death penalty, atleast for now.
0

rajakumarJun. 22, 2008 - 08:22AM JST

****Millions would prefer to live inside jails than be jobless/homeless, is this true. Then why japan sent so much aid outside and not help japan homeless/jobless.****
0

flammenwerferJun. 22, 2008 - 08:32AM JST

If no death penalty then the "substitute death penalty" should be "hard time" not the hotel conditions of prisons in the western world but a prison with no TV, no internet , no pornography (some countries like Sweden and the US allow it (magazines) even for sex offenders), no luxuries just give them spartan living conditions and spartan food and let them reflect on their deeds wallowing in their own misery with no hope for parole. Make them grow their own vegetables etc to offset the drain on taxpayers money, spend as little money as feasibly possibly on these creatures as it's a travesty when 40% of schools just got labelled as major earthquake hazards and hospitals are under funded.

Decent, law-abiding people do not deserve to die with the blood of others on their hands.

Who has blood? the person executing the death warrant or all of society? I am sure the vast majority of law abiding citizens don't feel they have blood on their hands..... Ok how about this then, put the death row inmates alone in room with a sharp knife, a cyanide tablet, and a rope and stool and tell them to take their pick...
0

FarmboyJun. 22, 2008 - 08:41AM JST

Locking dangerous people up is sufficient for me. I don't think the state needs to be in the business of offing people, and as badly as most governments manage important things, they would be offing the wrong people anyway.

There is no link to the death penalty preventing crime, and one quick look at the US news attests to that, so I think that argument is weak. The argument about the cost of keeping prisoners is a little stronger, but again, if the state is wrong just once, then it is guilty of the same crime as the accused: killing an innocent person. I say just throw em in jail..it's enough.
0

EurajReturnsJun. 22, 2008 - 09:51AM JST

In my opinioin, some people are just not redeemable or correctable. Yet, you'd have to be blind, in denial, or have no sense of justice to not see that it is overused.

if the state is wrong just once, then it is guilty of the same crime as the accused: killing an innocent person. I say just throw em in jail..it's enough.

Then again, people have been locked in prison for forty years, have it revealed with more advanced technology that they did not commit a crime, and then come out with a flawed mind and a screwed up life. The state will make mistakes, and that's a problem that should lie with the debate of thorough investigation and miscarriages of justice, not punishments. After all, the time that you'd spend locked up for a crime that you could be considered to be "offed" for would be long enough to ruin your life anyhow.

Regardless of all that, I think your opinion would change if say, someone came along and killed the five most important members of your family.
0

farhaanJun. 22, 2008 - 11:18AM JST

I support death penalty. Criminals who deserve DP should be executed without any delay. Eye for an Eye is a common sense.
0

Zen_BuilderJun. 22, 2008 - 11:35AM JST

"Eye for an Eye" is a concept that got thrown out milenia ago as impractical. Caused too many problems and wars.

And WHO decides if someone deserves the DP? A Jury of random selected people with NO legal and/or medical training.

Or a few posters who feel better because they feel better after posting their blood-lust online.

What surprises me how many of the people that claim to be pro-DP are supposedly christians(religion of peace and forgiveness).

Not sure about all the different prison systems in the world, but back home "Murder 1" will get you 20yrs of hard confinement and the need to work 8hrs a day to produce goods for the general public. Of course multiple, consecutive sentences are possible.

Guys that been found mentally unstable are in hospital wars

Money earned from their labour goes towards off-setting the cost of housing/training/counseling them.

Hard confiment = NO TV, newspaper, etc so they guys come out 20yrs later and know little about the outside world.

Now THAT is scary trying to survive in a world you know little about, IMO.
0

aomorisamuraiJun. 23, 2008 - 10:46AM JST

Zen,

Eye for an Eye was not thrown out, it is quite alive and well. You must not like seeing people get what they deserve.

This isn't online bloodlust; this is removing dangerous people from society.

A jury doesn't need to be medically or legally trained to tackle these cases. Look at Tomohiro Kato; eyewitness and victim testimony should slam dunk this guy.

You can be pro-DP and not christian. And vice versa.

Hard confinement doesn't exist in the US. The people in charge are too soft. Maybe in Japan, never been to Japanese prison.

Prisoners make money to buy contraband and other amenities. Taxpayers shoulder the burden for everything else.

If anything, instead of making executions these quiet, private, secluded happenings, I think we need to start making a VERY public example of "dead men walking".
0

Zen_BuilderJun. 23, 2008 - 10:54AM JST

Japanese confinement is pretty harsh, can't even talk/chat without permission, shower once every 3 days, etc. Not been there can only talk about confinement back home as I spoke to a few guys that did their time.

If a guy is locked he has been removed from society not so?
0

ZurgJun. 23, 2008 - 11:14AM JST

New York State does not allow the death penalty and there are so many murderers in the city alone.

In Texas State does advocate the death penalty, however, there are still murders in that state.

In China, the death penalty is shooting you in the back of the head in public.

Now if that could not be a 'death deterrent' then I don't know what is.

As someone once said, 'If they can get away with it, they will.'
0

PigletJun. 23, 2008 - 11:28AM JST

It is a philosophical issue: should any government be allowed to take life away? As a libertarian, I think that it is not the role of the government to decide who is going to live and die. I don't give my government this power over my fellow citizens, may they be rapists or serial killers. However, a proper Justice system (either public or private) is necessary to protect the community/society from dangerous individuals, who should be kept in jail.
0

FarmboyJun. 23, 2008 - 04:25PM JST

Regardless of all that, I think your opinion would change if say, someone came along and killed the five most important members of your family.

Really it wouldn't. The person who did it should be locked up. Killing the person doesn't help me in the slightest, as my wish would be to have the people brought back, not to kill additional people. I am not against killing the person at the moment of the crime to try to prevent the crime, but afterwards, it's too late.
0

nycsamuraiJun. 24, 2008 - 12:24AM JST

In the U.S., it is a jury of citizens who decide whether a defendant is guilty or not, and for the most part, to what level or degree should be punished. To say the government should not be allowed to take a life away is not completely accurate since, at least in the U.S., it is a jury of peers who decide. No system is perfect and there will always be mistakes.
In some cases, however, I would welcome this option.

In China, the death penalty is shooting you in the back of the head in public.
0

rurikaJun. 24, 2008 - 12:47AM JST

Anyone who supports the death penalty should do a little research on how it has been used in Singapore.
0

HughgarseJun. 24, 2008 - 11:52AM JST

The only problem with supporting the death penalty in Japan is trusting that the legal system here has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that someone was guilty in the first place..

honestly speaking, I`ve no faith in the legal system in Japan, as there are too many cases in Japan where people are convicted, then proven innocent years later..
0

HonestDictatorJun. 24, 2008 - 01:10PM JST

@Rurika why isn't that humanitary organization plugging on Singapore for gross misuse of the dp instead of Japan? Japan, even though they still have a fairly lack luster justice system, does not have death penalties randomly handed out just for the heck of it.

In certain cases, even though you'll probably never understand it, certain people are required to be permanantly removed from society completely. Unless deemed fit by the victims family to find it in their hearts to forgive the perpatrator.
0

HonestDictatorJun. 24, 2008 - 01:19PM JST

The death penalty can only apply to the most brutal of cases where the murderer intentionally killed in a brutal, sadistic, or heartless fashion with absolutely no consideration for the victim. Just recently I saw a video of a man who was sentanced to life without chance of parol in prison for killing his wife. As the judge passed the sentance, can you guess what this man did? He started to threaten the judges life and the judges family and then stated he would kill everyone else related to his wife he murdered. He actually stood up in his shackles and attempted to steal the nearest deputies gun. Now why on earth should we allow people that even if they are incarcerated, can still be allowed to attempt and or continue to traumatise the victems surviving family?
0

FineDinerJun. 24, 2008 - 01:28PM JST

For cases such as the Akiba one, I am not in favour of the death penalty, though I am in favour of a Torture Penalty, which would involve many years of applied torture using both medieval and the latest techno induced torture regimes. Only then, will sickos like Kato think twice before inflicting infinite pain not only on the victims but the dozens to hundreds of friends and family members of the victims.