Abolishing death penalty 'inappropriate,' says justice minister

"Inappropriate"? A week after Iwao Hakamada was finally freed after spending 46 years on death row in a huge miscarriage of justice. The Japanese government is truly death and blind to the reality that surrounds them.

This is Japan, so just continue everything just before.

Can the "anti" people explain how anything BUT the death penalty would be appropriate justice for this subhuman here? He killed a group of immensely talented people - each and every one of them contributing to the society infinitely more than he's every done:

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20241002/p2g/00m/0na/024000c

Mealy-mouthed words from a politician confident he will never be challenged in his hypocrisy. "The public 'largely' considers it unavoidable," meaning it is not unanimous but the death penalty should stay nonetheless because the majority supports it. However, to use different surnames should not be forced amid "divided public opinion", which he actually misrepresents because public opinion is in favour. Either public opinion is central or it is not. You cannot pick and choose.

Did anyone expect change?

death penalty is Barbaric and Ineffective

Abolishing death penalty 'inappropriate,' says justice minister

Well said, Mr. Minister.

Japantoday link for my previous message. I couldn't find the story one hour ago. My comment still stands - why should the Kyoani murderer live? Good job to his lawyers though - they had to dig really really deep and scrape

https://japantoday.com/category/crime/kyoto-anime-arsonist-to-continue-to-contest-liability-in-appeal-trial

would be "inappropriate" as the public largely considers it "unavoidable for heinous crimes."

That is a non-sequitur, popularity is not justification to deny the removal of an unethical measure, specially when the Japanese government insists on saying they are focused on protecting human rights. What is inappropiate is to say one thing but then do the opposite as in this case.

Can the "anti" people explain how anything BUT the death penalty would be appropriate justice for this subhuman here? 

The crime defines the criminal, the penalty defines the society that imposes it. Unless you want the justice system to be on the same level of the criminals the only appropriate thing is to hold the system to a much higher standard.

Have a referendum. Let the people decide

That is a non-sequitur, popularity is not justification to deny the removal of an unethical measure,

Morality is nested in the group. It is the agreed upon behaviour, implicit or explicit, between two or more individuals be that group as small as a couple, or as large as a nation.

Let the people decide what is ethical and just.

Have a referendum. Let the people decide

A referendum do not address the moral and ethical problems with the death penalty, it would just be an excuse to pretend popularity makes self contradictory measures magically fine.

Morality is nested in the group

If the group have decided human rights are worth being protected, and can't justify an unethical measure by need or even strong beneficial effects that means it has to remove that measure to be congruent to its own standards.

A referendum do not address the moral and ethical problems with the death penalty,

Morality doesn't exist in a vacuum. it IS the group that decides what is and what isn't "moral". Morality is the agreed upon behaviour, implicit or explicit, between two or more individuals. C'est tout

Morality doesn't exist in a vacuum

Again, that does absolutely nothing to refute the fact that if the society has decided human rights are worth protecting then the only available option (to be still logically congruent) is to eliminate all the measures that contradict this posture when it is realistically possible. The death penalty can be eliminated without any problem. No part of the argument ever depends on morality being on a vacuum, it actually addresses the point of the society that upholds it.

Pretending people can decide one thing and then contradict this decision arbitrarily without even making an effort to argue how is just running away from the discussion when recognizing the posture is self contradictory and can't be defended.

C'est tout

Of course you are free to stop trying to defend something, openly declaring so of course leaves to other people to bring further arguments that demonstrate that something is not valid.

The weakest point of Makihara's position - as others have indicated - is essentially the "court of public opinion" don't want it.

But the "court of public opinion" disagrees with many govt policies and actions / inactions, but they never sway in their concrete hardened focus on their opinion and rarely take into account the position of others.

When confronted with this anomaly the oft heard response is "We will seek to gain the understanding of the people".

Classic having their cake and eating it too.

If you want to retain the death penalty, just say it out loud and clear "People who kill people deserve to be killed".

Stop all of the pretendy, pretendy obfuscation.

Again, that does absolutely nothing to refute the fact that if the society has decided human rights are worth protecting then the only available option (to be still logically congruent) is to eliminate all the measures that contradict this posture when it is realistically possible. 

Morality is not based on some ethereal concept of jurisprudence. It's simply what is agreed upon to be right or wrong, implicitly or explicitly, by the group. Some groups (societies) have decided that people who commit heinous crimes waive their human rights as a result. This is considered "moral", by such societies. Japan is a society in which the group is paramount. As such...the group should decide whether or not capital punishment is moral.

"it IS the group that decides what is and what isn't "moral"."

You are a moral, historical and cultural relativist. And there is no wrong able to be derived from any first principles, such as murder or stealing is wrong, because it just depends on the group at the time, though what group's opinion within nested groups might be an issue. But, in effect, there is no real morality beyond opinion. Are you happy with that, Geeter? I mean, it is a position; a very postmodern one too. So, where opinion supports separate surnames or female monarchs that is fine, I am sure you will agree. The politicians often don't though, so are they immoral?

death penalty is needed to destroy living evidence, in that way , the dead can not appeal or claim the truth.

No wonder they want to keep this regime. useful to hide inconvenient truth when needed.

Morality is not based on some ethereal concept of jurisprudence

So not C'est tout after all.

Exactly zero part of the comment has to do with jurisprudence, nothing at all. You are trying to make up contrary arguments to avoid addressing the actual arguments that refute your position, that is a strawman fallacy and a well known tactic from people that refuse to argue logically when recognizing the lack of value of their position.

When it is easy to demonstrate with logical arguments (again, cero jurisprudence here) that a group is contradicting itself with what it supports there is no problem with demanding for that group to be congruent with what they themselves say are their values.

Some groups (societies) have decided that people who commit heinous crimes waive their human rights as a result.

That does not apply to Japan, which still says death row prisoners have human rights, says the human rights should be protected and that says convenience or profit is not a valid reason to kill people, just to contradict itself in everything with the death penalty.

Japan is a society in which the group is paramount. As such...the group should decide whether or not capital punishment is moral.*

With the obvious solution that the group (represented by its own government) becomes congruent in their actions and declarations. Either by recognizing they don't consider human rights valuable or by actually using them as a parameter to see what is or not justified.

In this case the logical incongruency is obviously clear, but for politicians it is much more politically profitable to pretend nothing wrong is happening and will say one thing while doing the opposite.

As mentioned in the comment you choose to ignore, the government has done a lot of things against the public opinion, mostly when it benefits the ruling class. That it is choosing not to do it in this issue is just to accumulate popularity points (that will be used the next time it contradicts the public's opinion) even if it has to act breaking their own logic.

As mentioned in the comment you choose to ignore, the government has done a lot of things against the public opinion, mostly when it benefits the ruling class.

Actually the government represents the public opinion.

Actually the government represents the public opinion.

LOL

Actually the government represents the public opinion.

Ideally, yes. In practice, no.

Did the public agree to a consumption tax hike from 8% to 10%...or the further proposed 15%?

No

With the obvious solution that the group (represented by its own government) 

The government often does not act according to the values or wishes of the group.

A referendum more accurately reflects the values and wishes of the group.

Actually the government represents the public opinion.

As the previous comments clearly show, frequently this is not the case.

When there are valid logic arguments that demonstrate one measure is not congruent with the position the country has decided upon there is a justification to change that measure even if the change is not popular.

I once tried to bring up the subject to a group of Japanese acquaintances - do they feel the death penalty is OK, or should it be abolished? They were all very puzzled about my question - they weren't sure why I thought it might be an issue. One of them said, "We're taught in school that the death penalty is fair and correct, so I think everyone in Japan feels this way."

80% of Japanese support the death penalty, unfortunately. The change is very slow.

Well, some good news finally.

If the death penalty is not abolished, the living conditions on death row, which can last for decades in some cases, must be significantly more humane than the current restrictions. Forcing inmates to remain seated the entire day is a cruel and unnecessary form of punishment.

If the death penalty is not abolished, the living conditions on death row, which can last for decades in some cases, must be significantly more humane than the current restrictions. Forcing inmates to remain seated the entire day is a cruel and unnecessary form of punishment.

And? So what’s the problem?

bass4funk

If the death penalty is not abolished, the living conditions on death row, which can last for decades in some cases, must be significantly more humane than the current restrictions. Forcing inmates to remain seated the entire day is a cruel and unnecessary form of punishment.

And? So what’s the problem?

Because cruel and unnecessary punishment is against international treaties on human and civil rights. Why can't an inmate be allowed to move around their already tiny cell?

ebisenToday  08:00 am JST

Can the "anti" people explain how anything BUT the death penalty would be appropriate justice for this subhuman here? He killed a group of immensely talented people - each and every one of them contributing to the society infinitely more than he's every done:

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20241002/p2g/00m/0na/024000c

Is it "justice" we want, or "vengeance"? The hard thing to get one's head around is the possibility that there is no hope of real "justice" done by any punishment. Quickly snuffing out the consciousness of this profoundly disturbed wretch seems merciful in comparison to allowing him to ruminate in solitude for years on end. Regardless of which one feels more appropriate, neither rights the wrong or satisfies most of our understanding of "justice".

Don't expect much from Makihara. Unfortunately he's a representative from my district, but he's never actually won the popular vote there. He often makes rather ignorant incendiary xenophobic and conpiratorial posts on Twitter. How he managed to land a cabinet position is beyond me.

Maybe he'll square the circle by having capital punishment for married couples who use different surnames.

You are a moral, historical and cultural relativist

I'm an objective realist who views the world as it is.

The Ripper!

Actually the government represents the public opinion.

Good to know you feel like that about the government in your country, the US.

Good to know you feel like that about the government in your country, the US.

And now Japan seems to be upholding their common-sense approach to the death penalty.