Debate on death penalty not very vigorous 1 year after Aum executions

The death penalty is still a just and necessary punishment. Anyone who has it handed to them likely is deserving of it.

In general, or just Japan? Perhaps you've forgotten the Birmingham Six or Guilford Four or Central Park Five. Certain people were calling for their deaths, despite being innocent.

“There is no debate. The death penalty is still a just and necessary punishment. Anyone who has it handed to them likely is deserving of it. Case and point, those Aum scumbags.”

Except those wrongfully convicted.....

It can be argued that capital punishment encourages statism, and the secretive way in which executions are carried out in Japan is indeed disturbing. But there's an irony here: If the government were to announce an indefinite moratorium in the carrying out of death sentences, it would be defying the will of nation's majority...Europeans, smugly proud of the fact that they have abolished capital punishment (having spent much of the 20th century slaughtering each other), rail against it in large part as an excuse to dump on, yes, the Americans, whom well-heeled snobs already tend to regard as barbarians. By way of reaction, such inclines me to support, albeit reluctantly, the practice of putting murderers to death. But there is something quite grotesque about it all, especially when some vicious kid commits homicide and then languishes in prison for thirty years, while his lawyers invent outlandish excuses for sparing his (or, rarely, her) life. My guess is that eventually both the Japanese and the Americans will weary of hangings and lethal injections--and leave state-approved executions to the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Saudis, the Iranians, and other non-role-models for humanity.

There is no debate. The death penalty is still a just and necessary punishment. Anyone who has it handed to them likely is deserving of it. Case and point, those Aum scumbags.

Hiro wrote: Personally i can live with these numbers.

Not if you get to be the one innocent person executed you can't. If I could ensure it was always people who thought as you do, my opposition to the death penalty would evaporate quickly!

Why spend tax money on these people to take care them their whole life?

1) Because your tax money is wasted on less important things all the time 2) the expense is to ensure the safety of society which any other day, execution advocates swear is awfully important 3) because when execution is not even an option, evil judges and prosecutors cannot use it to seek fame or advancement 4) if you truly have a rigorous system in place to ensure only the guilty are executed, its going to cost more for the trials than it does to keep a person in prison for life 5) even if guilty (especially if guilty) they may have knowledge of other unsolved crimes and confess if alive. 6) Because if the state can justify killing, then so can the individual. It literally encourages murder because it says sometimes killing to punish is acceptable.

No system in the world is absolutely 100% foolproof. There would also be a innocents in those numbers. But people only always focus on the bad side of things. If for example 15 horrific criminals that committed crimes enough to warrant death, then having 1 innocent mix into that is still possible. Does that mean to spare one must means to spare all? Personally i can live with these numbers. Reason why we accept this, is mainly because while there is a small chance there could be a some innocent mix in over the years, most others are just humans beyond saving and who have spend there whole life in prison for the things they commited.

Why spend tax money on these people to take care them their whole life? To make them suffer and go crazy in prison? Ever if they ever get out after turning into a old man, the world has change so much that most would just suicide after going into the outside world or commit crimes again to go back to their prisoon life.

Debate on death penalty not very vigorous 1 year after Aum executions

Why would it if it satisfies a wanton need for vengeance?

There is a difference between justice and vengeance.

The majority of the world’s countries and 18 American states have abolished their death penalties.

Judging by the murders committed by cops in America which they get away with, seems to me the death penalty has been moved from the execution chamber and onto the streets.

But anyway, there is a constant and terrible problem with a debate such as this and that is the usual assumption that both parties are saying what they really think, particularly the side which is favoring the view that suffering and/or death is the correct punishment or mode of operation. There are many who favor the death penalty simply because they are trolls who want death and suffering and feel empowered knowing their government can and will end lives and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. They don't analyze any of it or even care what crime was committed really, they just get off knowing someone is going to be put to death.

And of course others think a few innocent deaths here and there is worth the price for the imagined security, dumb as I find that thought. And there are other thoughts as well in favor of the death penalty, all of which I find extremely sophomoric.

The justice system should always have its eyes on the future. It can and should end any threat to society from a criminal with jail for as long as is necessary to be sure there is no threat, even if its life. Killing them is going overboard beyond what is actually necessary.

And of course too many people fail to realize that there are simply a lot of cruel and evil people out there, as I alluded to earlier. Not only are mistakes made with regard to death penalty cases, but sometimes information is quite intentionally hidden so as to allow a person to seem guilty and get them killed. Evil people gravitate toward positions of power more than good people. We good people need to keep that in mind.

...but if a jury, and afterwards a three appeal judge panel say, reach a guilty verdict, then the sentence can surely be safely pronounced. 

The fact that many convicted people are found innocent at a later time prove your hypothesis to be incorrect.

No real democracy can exist in a state where the people fail the simplest test of political maturity by granting their government the right to kill their fellow citizens. No freedom-loving people could be craven enough to allow those in positions of authority to hold the power of life and death over them because that is the first step on the road to state terrorism. BTW., the above mentioned "where your mind becomes your worst enemy, is the way to go" overlooks the fact that in most cases the minds of murderers have always been their worst enemy which is why psychiatric prisons are an even better way to go, as far as possible from the cruel practices of authoritarian regimes.

@Tony W - The death penalty for deliberate murder where there is no serious reason for committing it (e.g. self defence) is both justice for the offender and for the victim's relatives

Are you sure you haven’t confused justice with revenge? Or, are they the same thing in your mind?

You killed my friend so I kill you. It sounds like revenge to me.

The death penalty for deliberate murder where there is no serious reason for committing it (e.g. self defence) is both justice for the offender and for the victim's relatives. Sure it should be only used when the evidence is indisputable that it is deliberate and that the suspect did it, but if a jury, and afterwards a three appeal judge panel say, reach a guilty verdict, then the sentence can surely be safely pronounced. Of course much money would be saved on prison costs and more cells be left free for less serious offences. Society would be benefited in more than one way.

Rotting their life away in a cell never to be released is a punishment. Death is a release from punishment. The pain of victims does not go away just because the perpetrator is dead. However, the perpetrator is out of pain. This is why I do not support the death penalty. I can live with my taxes being used to keep these oxygen bags alive and suffering. There are far worse things my taxes are wasted on.

Aleph going 100 new members annually. What a big number! What aspects of such a cruel murderer do they respect? I can't understand it.

Yeah right, go take a look at those states. It is the wild west. Look at London or Stockholm.

Someone didn't learn that correlation does not mean causation. Talk about low intelligence.

The majority of the world’s countries and 18 American states have abolished their death penalties.

Only 18 American states have formally abolished the death penalty. Many more have effectively abolished it without formally having done so.

@JJ Jetplane

For vicious murderers I think a lifetime in Solitary confinement, where your mind becomes your worst enemy, is the way to go.

Some murderers are not vicious and they are quite sane. What do you suggest their punishment should be? No criticism of you, just wondering.

There's not much to debate now, is it?

In my opinion, the system here; with the police having the power to question suspects for up to 23 days without their legal counsel being present and the amount of confessions that system brings makes having the death penalty an extremely dangerous thing. A very, very concerning thing.

I’ve always been against the death penalty. I believe a way out isn’t justice. The death penalty is a way out. For vicious murderers I think a lifetime in Solitary confinement, where your mind becomes your worst enemy, is the way to go.

After all the fuss over the Ghosn affair I would have thought that more people would be aware of how simple it is for innocent people to be convicted of a crime in this country. Even for that reason alone, the death penalty should be abolished because goodness knows how many wrongly accused people have been murdered by the State over the years.

 I know there will always be the fear of the wrong person getting convicted

Executing an innocent person is a monstrosity.

The fear is very well founded.

@Lamilly

+1

It defies logic, but young naive people are still being recruited to 'Aleph'.

In due course all is revealed and they sit in awe before a framed photo of 'Asahara' Matsumoto Chizuru, which is resting upon an armchair covered with a white silk cloth.

So, making him pay the supreme penalty can probably be justified, but how do you not create a martyr out of a mass murderer?

he executions could have sparked a vigorous debate on the death penalty in Japan, but they have not led to any major movement calling for its abolition despite international criticism

I tried to stir up a discussion about with a few years ago with some friends (Japanese men). I told them about how capital punishment was a controversial issue back in my home country. They seemed shocked by that. They just shrugged, said "We were taught in school that this is correct," and that was the end of it. Simple, I guess.