Court shortens psychiatric evaluation period for Abe's accused killer

It's time for officials to go for psychiatric evaluation, any idea of how much that church effecting family?

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/11/11/national/japan-unification-church-group-donation/

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/11/05/national/social-issues/religion-exit-system-survey/

While it is hard that a legally insane person can carry out such premeditated and elaborated crime (tracking Abe, producing the murder weapon, etc.) I feel proud of these things in Japan or elsewhere, because a state should not punish its mentally ill.

I'm saying this aside it all from Yamagami.

He had a target in mind, for a particular, very personal, deeply felt reason. You don't have to be shrink of the century to conclude that that rules out insanity. We can't condone murder, so consequences must follow. What those might be aren't for me to say, but it's time to move onto the next stage.

He clearly was very lucid when planning and carrying out this murder. Let’s stop pretending he’s “insane”.

He knew what he was doing. He believed that Abe's family through the father had empowered the "church" and thereby ruined his family. His action was one of revenge but has the consequence of potentially saving many other families suffering. I don't know if this will be taken into account at sentencing. I doubt it, but it should.

It's good to see that there are some judges in Japan who actually have minds of their own.

With all the briefing and leaks, how can this man be tried in accordance with due process?

Look at the facts:

approached Abe at a campaign speech on a street corner in the western city of Nara on July 8 and opened fire with a handmade gun

We know that he was firing a gun. We don't know it was his bullet that killed abe.

request to continue Yamagami's psychiatric evaluation until Feb 6

Assuming he was just used as a distraction, and someone else fired the bullet, that will be VERY hard to prove half a year after the assassination.

Maybe his mother did have financial troubles related to the Unification Church, and he was in need of money, taking on this job would indeed solve his money troubles. He might even have confessed the hole thing to the police, and the police chose to mention only the Unification Church. Without a trial, we can only speculate, as no real evidence is going to be made public.

Well done, 6 months is more than what's normally needed unless the so called experts do not know what they are evaluating, and that is a whole different story.

The idea that “He knew what he was doing” is proof that he was sane is laughable.

Insane people can spend an eternity on meticulous plans to carry out whatever bizarre scheme has attracted their flaky attention.

They don’t all run around naked and frothing at the mouth like they do in comic-books….

Gallows ASAP !!..

Hypocrites. They will hang him anyway.

All windowdressing. He has no chance.

With all the briefing and leaks, how can this man be tried in accordance with due process?

It is a common tactic in Japan by police and prosecutors. Keep the defendant isolated and leak snippets of information to the public which are detrimental to the defendant.

Are we not sure that the prosecutors wanted to keep him longer on a psych hold because they worry he is garnering too much sympathy with all the revelations coming out about the UC and the LDP?

Suspected of shooting Abe? He admitted it, he gave his motive, there are videos of the shooting and hundreds of witnesses. I think that goes beyond a reasonable doubt.

Was/is he mentally ill?

While that’s a legally typical defense premeditated murder is not an indication of mental illness. In fact it’s simply as is: premeditated.

In any case he is doomed to a death sentence. Japan being one of the few countries that condemn to death.

He clearly was very lucid when planning and carrying out this murder. Let’s stop pretending he’s “insane”.

Insanity is not defined by lucidity. It's defined by the ability to tell right from wrong, or more specifically, that the accused was out of their mind to the point that the weren't able to comprehend that their actions were wrong. They may be entirely lucid, and yet entirely unable to determine right from wrong.

All humans are insane to some degree because we listen to that voice in the head (Ego/conditioned mind) telling us things that aren't true.

That's not how insanity is defined from a legal standpoint, so no, we aren't all insane to a degree.

Hypocrites. They will hang him anyway.

Single murders only receive the death penalty under exceptional circumstances.

Looking at precedent, when the mayor of Nagasaki was shot and killed, his murderer did receive a death sentence, but it was revoked upon appeal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iccho_Itoh

So it could go either way, as the ex-PM may be considered, from a legal standpoint, to be more serious, but it's not a given that he'll be executed.

Murder itself is an insane act.

A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract action, if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests.

A person who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally of sound mind, may make a contract action when he is of sound mind.

A person who is usually of sound mind, but occasionally of unsound mind, may not make a contract action when he is of unsound mind.

Evidence has to presented to a court, judiciary, evidence should not be leaked to the media, especially by prosecutors, constituting contempt of court, due process.

@name_not_important

Well said. Hope you’re right….

'Insanity' is subjective and grey and not really measurable.

You provided the dictionary definition, which yes, is subjective. However, the legal definition is explicit, and there are methods they use to objectively qualify whether someone is legally of sound mind or not.

There is no 'normal' perception. I might do something 'wrong', but I could argue that I did not [perceive it as wrong at that moment.

The question is whether doctors will agree with you, and whether a judge/jury trusts their opinion.