The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.© 2016 AFP
Japan executes two death row inmatesTOKYO
©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.© 2016 AFP
Login to comment
and what's the methodology for this informed public opinion?
"Surveys have shown that the death penalty has overwhelming public support in Japan, despite repeated protests from European governments and human rights groups." - If the Europeans took a harder stance on criminals maybe they wouldn't have the problems their facing now.
Retribution, not justice. Neither of them posed a danger to society after they were incarcerated.
@Andrew Crisp Such arguments are always used by officials in countries with the death penalty without looking at hard facts.
Fact1: The countries where there is death penalty are (by far) much more violent than any country in Europe. Just take the USA, with over 30,000 deaths due to gun violence every year. Just for your information, there has been around 1,500 deaths in the whole Europe over the past 20 years, so there is not even a comparison to be made in terms of where the real violent society with issues is.
Fact2: In China, there are several thousands people executed every year. It has been so for the past decades, yet the number of executed people is the same every year. Clearly people are not scared of it, and are not learning to act to avoid death penalty.
Fact3: Every person, including the worst criminals on earth, deserve to be treated with regards to his human rights. In Japan, leaving of fear of being called a few hours before being called and the family being informed after the sentence has been executed is nothing any developed country should do, this belongs to sadistic measures in dictatures.
Fact4: Since you are referring to problems in Europe, I assume you mean the guys bombing themselves in France, Belgium lately? Those guys are already ready to die and most of them do during the bombing or the aftermath. So I really fail to see how death penalty would prevent any of them to do what they do.
Before anyone starts saying horrible, the 56 yo woman killed 2 husbands to steal their insurance money and the 75 year old killed about 5 people including women and a 9 year old girl. I say... they got what they got coming.
Being on the fence about capital punishment, these stories always pull me both ways. On one hand, I think 'good riddance', on the other I think 'I sure hope they got the right people'.
@idir13013 tell all that to the victims families...the facts are they are cold blooded killers and they do no deserve the right to live after taking innocent lives.So what we should keep these murderers alive for what may I ask...humanity maybe they should have thought about it a bit more before they committed the horrendous crimes..these people have no respect for human rights and certainly do not deserve them now do they..
Even prisoners deserve basic human rights. A grown-up society will not treat its criminals the way the criminals treat others. A grown-up society treats its criminals with basic human dignities and respect, because that's the right thing to do.
One of the reasons who oppose death penalties may be in some countries, the death penalities are misapplied politically to people who oppose the power of the countries. People don't have to worry about the Japanese justice systems.
Regardless of the crime it is cruel to the extreme to keep a person in solitary confinement for many years and live in fear for the day they will swing by the neck. Especially when the knock on the cell door comes a few hours prior.
Yes, I know folk will say "what about the victims?" and yes, I agree they deserve to die.
But this method Japan has taken strikes me as rather cold hearted and seems more like revenge than retribution.
C'mon…as human beings we are better than that!
Otherwise we are no better than the evil we put to death.
I don't know…seems to me that crime and punishment in Japan is very vindictive.
put yourself in the shoes of the victim, their family and loved ones. and other potential victims. that could be you.
Clueless - I agree. If you sacrifice your humanity in dealing with your enemies, you just become your enemy.
OK, so let the victims families decide the fate of the murderer. (with proper counseling and guidance of course)
Let then decide a whole life term or the death penalty. No arguments there.
But lets not lower ourselves and let anger and the desire for vengeance cloud our decision!
Tell the man when he will swing so he can make his own peace with whichever God he finds comfort in.
Pre-meditated calculated government supported killing = State Murder.
It takes a grasp of a concept way removed from revenge, to acknowledge that is truly what it is.
And the "majority support it" line is bs. The majority support many things like - no nuclear power or no war constitution, but the govt does what it wants regardless.
If you support state killing you support state murder - no halves.
Great points above by Klausdorth and browny1
A responsible government and judicial system cannot punish by death simply on philosophical grounds. A system that outlaws murder cannot employ murder. It must be above the motivation of revenge. It is truly the sign of a decayed society that outlaws mercy killing (euthanasia) and condones revenge killing (capital punishment).
It has never worked as a deterrence.
I have no doubt I would personally be bloodthirsty were I a family member of a victim but it is the role of the state to ensure safety and to protect citizens and not to seek revenge in their names. What kind of society does that create? With the right (wrong) circumstances I think the richest country in the world can perhaps provide us some sort of example of that.
Gov't sanctioned murder. It sort of drags everyone down to the lowest common level. But I guess for some it is some sort of perverse pleasure.
Executing the wrong person is not unknown---remember Timothy Evans in the Notting Hill (London) murder case. Two men were hanged to get the right one!
Offering prayers on Good Friday.
i didn't say anything about being pro or against death penalty. i just said put yourself in their situation.
I think the punishment for killing kids is castration I bet people might be deterred by that
I am offended by all those anti-death penalty people, putting the criminals in the same group (of humans) as me, and claiming they should get the same rights. By doing things not worthy of a human being they've lost their right of being considered one. Killing for insurance money, or killing entire families including children are definitely among those things.
A mature justice system aims for reduction of incidents, and rehabilitation of prisoners. An immature justice system aims for revenge.
It may be working. That's why the murder rate may be low in Japan. Even one person stopped short of committing murder because of this punishment, it's worth it. I think it's worth killing 124 murderers to save just one innocent person.
Retribution is part of justice.
The idea that a justice system can be "mature" or "immature" is philosophical ejaculation. there is no real hope of rehabilitation when it comes to encarcerating prisoners. that is something that christians and liberals want you to believe. prison is solely meant to be punsihment. nothing more and nothing less. and the ultimate form of punishment is the death penalty. nothing more, nothing less.
Nope. It's the system by which mature countries deal with their prisoners.
With a fatalist attitude like that, it can never happen. However, in countries that aim for rehabilitation, they do often rehabilitate prisoners. It may not be perfect, but better to save one at the cost of a few, than to save none at all and lower the standards of your civilization's humanity.
Nope. In many countries, the stated purpose of their prison systems is rehabilitation. Prison isn't 'meant' to be anything. It is whatever that country determines it to be.
Not necessarily. Often keeping someone in prison for the rest of their life is more of a punishment than just offing them.
Take out the garbage day. Should do more often.
You dont like death penalty ? Dont commit serious crimes, yes, that simple we dont tell you how to handle your criminals, dont tell us what to do with ours
People are going to criticize, and there is nothing you can do about it. Don't like reading that criticism? Stop reading. Yes, that simple.
Executing guilty murderers is not a violation of their human rights. Once they commit murder they cease to be human in the sense that we admire and honor. A killer of a nine year old girl received three meals and a cot while her tiny corpse rotted in the ground. The parents' pain unimaginable. The world and society are better off without them. For those of you that bleat like sheep, what should we do with child killers and rapists? Let them get sleep and meals, education, a library, correspondence courses, college degrees, etc all at the tax payers expense? C'mon! It's a no brainier.
tina - you said even if one person stopped killing because of the death penalty it is worth it.
Well - what's your take on the brutal and horrific mass stabbing of little kids in their classroom a few years back? The perpetrator did it to GET sentenced to death. All those lives lost BECAUSE of the death penalty.
But this point is not worthy of an argument imo. Savagely killing the savage killer begets savagery.
I'm missing the connection here. How did the death penalty cause the murder of those kids?
any stats, data or even made up pages to back up this tripe?
And this in particular is of interest:
Now go back and look at the recidivism rate for each of these countries.
I know it bothers a lot of people to not punish wrong-doers, but the fact is that aiming for rehabilitation is better for society overall, even if it removes the feeling of retribution for some people.
Great info you got there. Never knew Norway had it so right.
Many folk just don't get it and are hell bent on vengeance.
Which I can understand - I want vengeance as well. But looking at the big picture, it's not the best path for society.
J-DakeMAR. 25, 2016 - 02:50PM JST
Why can a system that outlaws confinement employ confinement for punishment?
Good on Japan!
Stranger - in that well publicized case, the killer wanted to die, so instead of offing himself, he chose to horrifically murder as many kids as he could - knowing full well he would get the death penalty for such an obscene crime.
He never resisted, never excused himself and directly stated he wanted to die on the gallows.
But I can only assume, that sadly his execution ( which by the way was carried out in record time only 2 years after the offence I think) didn't bring any true closure to the families, friends and commmunity. Hopefully I'm wrong, but.....?
And other cases of the same "death wish by execution" exist.
Human rights do not exist out there in the hyperuranium. Nations decide what a right is. So if Japanese people decide that serial killers have no "right" to live, I don't see the problem. Besides, to me it's more humane to kill someone than keeping him into a jail forever.
In Japan, if you are caught you did it. So the popular (yet stupid) argument "what if you sentence an innocent person?" does not apply as well in Japan.
In most countries the prison systems fail to re-educate people and re-introduce them into society. So their only raison d'être is rendered void. Successful re-education depends on the type of crime, the country, the culture, the jail system, etc. But most importantly it depends on the type of crime. How can you hope to re-educate a serial killer??
In addition, and most important, jails are a bad system of deterrence for crime because they're expensive. When it comes to repellent/violent/repeated crimes, I advocate for a mitigated eye-for-an-eye or extradition to some isolated, unguarded island. Very convenient for tax payers.
Not wanting to wrongly execute innocent people is stupid? Wow, we have pretty different concepts of what 'stupid' is. I think being ok with wrongly executing innocents is pretty stupid myself.
No, it's not stupid in that sense. It's stupid because the argument always comes out in relation to capital punishment when in fact it's unrelated to it. Meaning, a wrong sentence is wrong regardless what the punishment is. So I don't understand why a wrong death sentence is worse than a wrong life imprisonment. Because there's always the possibility for the truth to come out? Not in Japan, where it's very, very uncommon for courts to reconsider sentences. And again, in Japan if you are sentenced to death it means you did it.
It's entirely related to it.
See, you have just said that it's relevant of all punishments - which includes capital punishment.
If someone is wrongly incarcerated, then they can get out later when the mistake is discovered. If they have been executed, there is no coming back. That's the problem - the finality of it.
Tell that to this guy and see what he thinks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iwao_Hakamada
If they had executed him, he would not have been able to be released.
So you are saying that Iwao Hakamada, who has been released and exonerated, actually did it? Aren't you an impressive investigator. Please show us the evidence you have that no one else on the planet seems to have, that shows him to have done it even when everyone else is saying he didn't.
erlol - have you really researched this or just having a dig?
If you have researched the background of all these matters in Japan, please link to supporting facts.
If you're digging, then you've dug a nice hole.
some people deserve to be executed. good job well done.
Omg guys, you are so picky! Ok then.
1) I've already said that the reason why the argument related to wrong sentences is misplaced is because it relates to all sentences, not just to capital punishment. I've also mentioned myself that it is more problematic when it comes to capital punishment because of the impossibility to reiterate. So there's no need to quote me and repeat what I've said already.
2) Strengerland, you quoted a case from the 60s. Back then they didn't have DNA testing and the police was very brutal and tried to extract confessions through torture-like practices. I don't think this is the case anymore. The number of death sentences declined steadily in the past decades and I believe it would be hard (or impossible?) to bring out some other case of misjudgment.
3) Browny1, I don't know what you refer to in particular. I raised several points.
That makes no sense. You are saying it's misplaced, but then you follow up by saying that it does relate to capital punishment as well. Which means it's not misplaced.
Shifting the goalposts are you? You claimed that a person who is caught in Japan is guilty, full stop. I proved that you are wrong on that.
But, to address your points:
And they still don't use it all the time.
They still often do. Stories come out every year or so about the police extracting a wrong confession. People keep getting released every year because of incorrect convictions (just happened a week or two ago with a couple in Osaka).
And yet, it is.
Sorry, but your initial argument that it's irrelevant because it's relevant makes no sense, and your other argument that when someone is guilty in Japan it definitively means they are guilty is also wrong.
erlol - thank you. Yes you raised some points - so I asked for some supporting links (or additional info) that's all. eg:
You said, "In Japan, if you are caught you did it"
You said, ".In addition, and most important, jails are a bad system of deterrence for crime because they're expensive"
You said, " So I don't understand why a wrong death sentence is worse than a wrong life imprisonment. "
You said, "And again, in Japan if you are sentenced to death it means you did it."
I'm all for the death penalty. You take someone's life away, you deserve to have yours taken away.
I'm in favour of democracy , Japan and it's people want the death penalty then death it is .. People with no vote can have an opinion on the subject .. have your whinge but there's nothing you can do about it .
CH3CHO:Beat me to it.
Could also make the guilty serve the family of the victims, if they wish, for the term of the sentence. Would clear out prisons.
This all means – and you seem not wanting to acknowledge this very simple thing I am saying – that that argument is valid for all sentences and all judiciary systems, regardless the type of punishment. However, people bitch about it (even though it's to some extent unavoidable) only when it comes to capital punishment.
Going back to the point, I am not saying judiciary systems are perfect. They cannot be. What I am saying is that, referring to capital punishment, Japan is the one place where probably it is ok for it to exists because sentences are very few and therefore very, very, very likely to be 100% right. So what I'm saying is that bringing a case from the 60s as evidence is quite misleading. Why? Because we are not in the 60s.
Yes, I did. So on what you don't agree? Instead of saying I "dig holes" just point to specific elements and criticize them. It is called the art of conversation/arguing.
He said he chose the school because the kids there were from higher class. So he killed them from vengeance not because of death penalty. I know some criminals said they did it because wanted death penalty but I think more people would stop commiting murder because not wanting death penalty. Low murder rate in Japan is evidence.
They didn't get what they deserved. Before execution those criminals should suffer what they victims suffered. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.
Punishment of criminals is designed to prevent the survivors of crime from applying the three R's. Revenge, Retaliation. and retribution. All extremely disruptive to the social fabric.
tinawatanabe: "I know some criminals said they did it because wanted death penalty but I think more people would stop commiting murder because not wanting death penalty. Low murder rate in Japan is evidence."
Really? I wonder what you would say when it's pointed out that both the US and China also have the death penalty. Do you think they also have low murder rates? And how many people have you heard say they did not murder because Japan has the death penalty vs. those that have said they would for the express purpose?
It is not an effective deterrent, tina, and the people who put the murderers to death are also murderers, guilty of the same thing.
And last time I checked capital punishment is part of 'all sentences and all judiciary systems', meaning that by your own words it's relevant.
Then the problem is with people not bitching about it with other punishments, rather than bitching about it with this punishment.
You are trying to make the argument that because it's relative to all punishments, it has no relevance to this punishment - which makes no sense. As I keep pointing out.
Non sequitur - a failure in logic. The reasoning behind 'very few' doesn't necessarily lead to your conclusion that the sentences are always correct, and the fact that they still even exonerate people as of recent directly shows your logic to be faulty.
"And last time I checked capital punishment is part of 'all sentences and all judiciary systems'"
NO, IT IS NOT!!!
Moderator: You can have 24 hours off from posting.
erlol - I did point to them and am just waiting for more info from you to support the points you made that I mentioned.
Making statements is fine, but a little more to- you know, like, substantiate your claims turns the dig into dug-out. Then I can / could / would / should criticize.
That's called iniating conversation and or discussion. nyuk, nyuk.
The death penalty is just irrational. The logic in reserving this most severe punishment for murderers is because we want to reinforce the idea that deliberately taking another human life is the worst thing anyone can do in society, ...but then we put a bag over their head and deliberately kill them? Aren't these two things at odds with eachother?
Bizarrely, I think the death penalty made much more sense in 18th century London where at least they were hanging petty thieves all the time to deal with the more practical issue of prison overcrowding.
. . . . as a society, why do we kill people (who kill people) to show that "killing" is wrong in the 1st place? Strangerland has a good point. But I'm still pro capital punishment.
If you want to dance with the devil, you've got to pay the fiddler when ur caught. But I thinks its fair to say that the murderers are doing the real "savage" killings: not the Department of Justice (US) or Japan's very own Ministry of Justice.
What is the purpose of capital punishment?
For the family? To save inmates costs?
Or just by principle?
What will be better after having done it?
We are in the 21st century, remember it!
Whereas Japan executes about 4 people a year, Texas kills that many per week.
Japan and the USA are NOT the only major advanced industrial nations with capital punishment. CHINA, India, Malaysia, Thailand also have Capital Punishment.
The industrialized nations of the world Group of Eight (G8) France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, Japan, the United States, Canada and Russia. The other Newly Industrialized Countries (NICs), South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, China, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Turkey.
Yes some people deserve to die. But I don't trust any government or justice system to judge over a person's life. Put them in jail and let god be the judge over their life.
The reason why they are on death row, for years, is their own fault. They constantly appeal despite knowing that they are guilty I have no sympathy for these brutal murderers. Bring back public executions so we can cheer their demise,
When criminals who received death penalty is pardoned, they need to live in society. How about anti-death penalty promoters welcome just only one to their home? Never mind if those released criminals understand only English or Japanese. I am sure these released criminals will be thankfull to his host and the host will be grad he saved. A life from Japan or USA
You can bitch about it as much as you want but the point is that you cant fix this problem. That's why the argument on the imperfection of judiciary systems is pointless (or stupid, as I put it in my first post) – because there's no way around it.
Ehmmmm..... I dont know what to say..... the fact that the sun rose everyday until today leads you to assume that the sun will rise tomorrow? Is it a logic failure...? lol We base our judgements on comparison, statistics, and common sense. Of course there's no certainty. But there is the likelihood of something happening or not. Given the characteristics of Japan's judiciary system today, my guess is that it is very unlikely that innocent people will be sentenced. This is my opinion. Of course you might think otherwise.
Ehmmm...you're embarrassing yourself. My statements are pretty self-explanatory.
1) Long-term Imprisonment is expensive. Everyone knows that. And of course the 'isolated island extradition' or eye-for-an-eye would be cheaper options. So I think it's up to you to comment/criticize if you have something to say. Or should I explain the obvious?
2) I say it's preferable to die than to spend a life in jail. What do you want me to explain? My values? My comparative experiences in jail? lol
papigiulio is absolutely correct. Good riddance.
Agree fully with the death penalty for these bastards!
Both of these sub-human, evil, twisted, freaks deserved the death penalty.
Maybe these "human" rights groups should adopt a murderer and save the state the time and trouble of an execution? Or those European governments could house these murderers along side the murdering terrorists who have been murdering random and innocent civilians within their own borders.
Nice defeatist attitude there. But anyways, if you don't execute people, you can at least do something to right the wrong. When a person has been executed, that can't happen. Which is why the argument is directly relevant to capital punishment, and for me is the only reason I sit on the fence about the matter.
What you just wrote is not a logic failure, but your previous assertion was.
You don't think forced confessions, a justice system that relies on confessions over and without evidence to support the confession, defense lawyers who think their jobs are to get the lightest possible sentence for their clients rather than getting them a not-guilty verdict, and a system that goes with the prosecutors will not lead to innocent people getting convicted? You're kidding yourself. Which is why, as I keep saying, they keep exonerating people previously convicted as guilty. You seem to skip over that little tidbit though.
Sorry, but your opinion doesn't match the real world.
Erlols wins by common sensé !
My opinion:I am theoretically against death penalty victims/close relationships are the ones society shall first respect as first casualties. I have no figure to show but statistically, there is probably a ratio of errors/nbr of death penalties out of reiteration of crime/criminal not sentenced to death penalty very low. It does mean that while a judicial system cannot be perfect, society gets more in return to apply death penalty. For wealthy countries (case of Norway, one of the wealthiest country in the world and low immigration...so not good example at all), where money is not an issue, full life sentence, if for real applicable, is perhaps better. To show the absence of common sense to anti-death proponents, can you imagine Hitler living nicely in his cell, writing books, for 40 year, with your tax money...you need to be rejecting mankind to accept this idea. Was just my opinion. Long life to all (with exceptions ;))
".....as the government—backed by public opinion—continued to ignore calls by international rights groups to end capital punishment."
And this, then, is true democracy at work. We are not talking here about some tribal society in Africa ruled by a genocidal dictator, so if the majority want to retain the death penalty then it should be so. The "sophisticates" of the Rights movements should, in this case, be ignored.
Except that many kids are taught in school that the death penalty is good and proper. My son's high school form teacher expressed his surprise and consternation when he asked the class to write an essay on the death penalty and why it was necessary, and half the class (of very, very bright kids) handed in essays giving the opposite viewpoint.
Indoctrination does not good democracy make.
Not losing any sleep here, more important things to debate about then 2 cold blood3d murderers.
erlol - no embarrassment here. You must have me confused with another.
And thank you for explaining a little. How about this one!
".... and most important, jails are a bad system of deterrence for crime because they're expensive"
I'm particularly interested in the connection between deterrence & expense. So do jails deter?
Or, "...In Japan, if you are caught you did it".
Remember, my initial post was simply asking for supportive links - facts. You still haven't provided them.
I wasn't attacking you - but I did make a throw-away comment about digging (trolling) because so many do. I apologize because now I see you are serious.
So about those links!!!
I cannot tell about other countries. The people are different so the remedy could be different.
Never heard they did not murder because of the death penalty. But I imagine the murder for insurance money for instance would increase if there is no death penalty.
I feel sorry for the public servants who have to do the hunging so I want the death penalty abolished as a matter of fact but I cannot see a better option.
So this time you don’t criticize my ‘logic’ but my attitude. Well, unless you have something sf like minority report to show me my attitude is very legitimate.
Ok Mr. precision, I didn’t do accurate research to present evidence supporting my claims on japantoday. I know that the Japanese penal systems is regarded as good by comparative standards in many respects and that’s it. How about you? Do you have plenty of evidence for the above statements? How many cases in the past say 30 years of people previously convicted as guilty for committing efferate/multiple murder and than exonerated? The boxer form the 60s story is old and it's just one case, you don’t want me to use your rhetoric and tell you that you are falling for a fallacy of composition? (see wikipedia…lol).
I'm particularly interested in the connection between deterrence & expense. So do jails deter?
Well, they don’t punish (or anyway that’s not their decelerated purpose), they certainly don’t re-educate, they mostly deter. But they’re expensive. So for example I think: a bike thief caught for the 10th time would be sentenced to spend once again e.g. 7 nights in jail. That's expensive and useless – after the 5th? time the law might say ‘we will cut you one hand’.
Oh, I'm still criticizing your logic, I just added a criticism of your attitude as well. And you have every right to have that attitude, just as I have every right to not respect it.
I've lived in Japan for near 20 years. I read the news every day. Every year or so they have a new incident where someone has been released after it was found out they were forced to confess, or that evidence was withheld, or that prosecutors maliciously changed evidence to suit their narrative. I don't write these down, but here are a handful I can remember off the top of my head:
-- Toshikazu Sugaya: http://thehimalayantimes.com/world/man-exonerated-after-17-years-in-japan-jail/
-- Govinda Mainaili: http://justicedenied.org/wordpress/archives/2315
-- Police evidence fabrication: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Pa9cTb1-RAEJ:www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/man-acquitted-over-drug-use-police-evidence-fabrication-suspected+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
-- Aoki and Boku: http://kyodonews.net/news/2016/03/16/53488
-- Police get four confessions, from four men who later turned out to be innocent: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/12/15/national/japanese-police-admit-botching-online-threat-probe-but-deny-forcing-the-confessions-made-by-the-innocent/
-- This guy, who confessed then retracted, but is still being tried despite almost no other evidence: http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/court-accepts-murder-confession-as-evidence-despite-retraction
And there are countless more. The police do not record full interrogations here. You are not allowed a lawyer to be present during interrogation. They can keep someone for 23 days without charges. There are all sorts of fallacies of justice here. To think that their 99% conviction rate means that they are really good and always correct is particularly naive.
Read more here: http://skeptikai.com/2013/09/28/the-whole-story-on-japans-99-conviction-rate-and-the-corruption-that-follows/
And here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/29/abandon-hope-all-ye-tried-in-japan.html
And here: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20810572
And if you want more, I can provide more examples and links.
Any more than zero is too many. But regardless, I gave some links above.
tinawatanabe: "I cannot tell about other countries."
It doesn't matter if you can or cannot (for a change -- it never stops you from 'telling about other countries' on every other subject under the sun!), you literally said, "Japan has the death penalty, and that is why Japan has a low murder rate (compared to other nations)", so why would it differ with other nations that have the death penalty if your sole argument is that the death penalty stops people from killing? Clearly it does not, in Japan OR elsewhere.
"Never heard they did not murder because of the death penalty."
Excuse me? What about:
"tinawatanabeMAR. 25, 2016 - 10:58PM JST I know some criminals said they did it because wanted death penalty but I think more people would stop commiting murder because not wanting death penalty. Low murder rate in Japan is evidence."
You contradict yourself yet again.
Strangerland: "Any more than zero is too many. But regardless, I gave some links above."
You did indeed, thank you. I suspect that is why erlols has suddenly become quiet, and will likely deny this conversation took place at all.
the death penalty may be working as a deterrent for the Japanese. Its low murder rate is one evidence of possiblity of working. But whether it is working for Americans or Chinese is irrelevant because different people. The fact that it may not be working for them does not work as evidence it does not work for the Japanese.
Yeah, those red states don't play games when it comes to serious crimes. Perhaps the blue states could wear this shoe. Don't mess with Texas.
Tinawatanabe: "the death penalty may be working as a deterrent for the Japanese. Its low murder rate is one evidence of possiblity of working"
You're backtracking. You never said "works as a deterrent for Japanese" r "possibly working", you said it was a deterrent, as fact, and that it worked. But don't take MY word for it, here's yours:
"Low murder rate in Japan is evidence."
Where's the "possibility" now, Tina?
"But whether it's working for Americans or Chinese is irrelevant"
Not when you state, as fact, that the death penalty works and the low demurrer rate is evidence. Sorry, you can't back out of what you said, especially when it was in response to people saying the death penalty is not a deterrent.
Erlols: "smithinjapan: oh shut up!"
What a mature response to your comments constantly contradicting yourself, and you STILL trying to justify what you said to stranger land after he's proven you wrong.
I said "Low murder rate in Japan is evidence." I didn't say "evidence" of what. Only if you'd interpret things more generously,.....
tinawatanabe: "if only you'd interpret things more generously"
You said it's proof the death penalty works, Tina. Don't pull an Aso and claim you were misinterpreted or people don't white-wash your comments enough. You said what you meant, were called on it, and now you are backtracking again.
But okay, what is it evidence of then, tina? Because you said it is evidence that it deters people from murder "because of not wanting death penalty".
Please stop saying you didn't say something when you did. It's right there in your comments.
How about the sentence right before?
I said "I think... " and then "Low murder rate in Japan is evidence." So altogether "Low murder rate in Japan is evidence of what I think..."
tinawatanabe: "So altogether "Low murder rate in Japan is evidence of what I think..."
YES!! You admit it!! It's 'evidence of what you believe', not "you think it's evidence", which is very different. You are stating it is MATTER OF FACT PROOF of your convictions, once again backflipping! Don't worry... I'd be embarrassed if I said what you said, too.
I will repeat, a low murder rate (so you say) is not at all proof that the death penalty is a deterrent, and proof of that is that other countries with the death penalty also have different rates of murder. If they all had low rates of murder, and nations without the death penalty had high rates ("for insurance purposes", according to you), your comment that the low rate is evidence might hold water. As it stands, it does not.
And don't ask me to interpret your comments more generously (or say you didn't).
"Fact1: The countries where there is death penalty are (by far) much more violent than any country in Europe"
Japan is more violent than Europe? Singapore is? What planet are you from?
Whatever you think about if they should keep the death penalty or abolish it, their system does appear to be extremely cruel. Not to give then the date when its going to happen is unjustifiable. Also such a high tech country using such a low tech method does seem to be at odds with each other.
Common sense have been lost by the masses; the death penalty is a punishment for a specific act
tinawatanabeMAR. 26, 2016 - 05:54PM JST smithinjapan,
There is no evidence that the death penalty works as a deterrent - this is a well-established fact in the literature. Besides, if you have any understanding of human psychology you would know that nobody who commits murder ever considers any possible consequences of their actions - they act in the heat of the moment, or simply believe they will never be caught.
Capital punishment simply panders to the primal human instinct for revenge and retribution - most developed nations and evolved, Japan and the US are a bit slow.
Where? I have never said that. I always entered "I think" or "it may" or "possibility" etc.
I never said there is. But is there evidence that the death penealty never works as a deterrent?
Have you ever asked the people who stopped short of commiting murder "why they stopped"?
If prisoners do not want to be executed, they should not choose death row.
tinawatanabe: "I never said there is. But is there evidence that the death penealty never works as a deterrent?"
So, when I pointed out that you said it was a deterrent, which you did but keep lying about, you say, "I didn't, but can you prove it's not a deterrent?"
Classic. Even in a phrase denying you said something, you say it. hahaha.
"Have you ever asked the people who stopped short of commiting murder "why they stopped"?"
Personally? Why would I? I don't make it a habit to speak to criminals. But we DO know that a lot of people have committed crimes solely to get the death penalty, making your assertion that it is a deterrent (and again, that is what you are doing with your question), silly.
The fact that there is anyone on death row would seem a strong indicator that the death penalty was not a deterrent for those people, at least.
The death penalty should not be used in cases where it wasnt a deterrent. Then it would no longer be effective for would-be murderers later on.
So, with this logic it's okay to use the death penalty and kill people because it might work as a deterrent?
I would expect people who stop short of committing murder because they think 'what am I doing!?" not 'wait, if I kill her I might be caught and will be executed. Okay, I won't do it". People commit murder because they have, for a period, lost sense of reality and the consequences of their actions - they don't think rationally.
Execution of prisoners should be done more often. It'll make people really think twice before killing someone else, and will greatly benefit taxpayers.
It sounds like youre recommending partial executions, which I support. Killing the prisoner most of the way but not completely lets us send the message that will be the deterrent.
Eventually the prisoner will die, but only after being useful as a commercial against murder.
If you're gonna execute them, at least don't make them wait years for it to happen.
I believe that you lose your right to life when you take another life, plain and simple. The killers have taken the life of someone else, thereby losing their own right to life.
"Put yourself in the victim's shoes" is a well-worn argument that can't be debated since the victims are dead and gone. As for the families of the victims, I wonder if they feel better knowing the criminal has been executed? I agree with what many have said, that in Japan justice seems more about revenge than anything else.
Oh Pie and canadean - so are you guys ok with the fact that innocent people are sometimes executed? How do you feel the issue of innocents being wrongly executed should be dealt with?
Okay. if I killed you, what kind of punishment you want for me? please answer
Robing a person of their most prized possession "THEIR LIFE" is in my thoughts cruel and unusual punishment so even though I don't know have to feel for the perpetrator I side with the victim but I also know that an eye for an eye will at some point leave a person blind.
Wc626MAR. 26, 2016 - 08:41PM JST
I won't. I won't ever be going there either. It sounds like a right dump.