crime

Japan lawyers' group seeks end to death penalty

24 Comments
By Elaine Lies

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

24 Comments
Login to comment

Hurrah!

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Liberal movements are a cencer to society

-12 ( +6 / -18 )

Certainly, supplementing fairly earned money from tax payers to criminals is not a solution, but neither is law-justified murder. Humanity still has ways to go about the final solution, but abolishing the death penalty is only right.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Daniel. I've always through about guving an Island to Felons. A place where they have to survive without the help of the society.

-9 ( +6 / -15 )

Those "people" breaking laws of both social and moral origin, while being sane, knowingly break apart the agreement between them and the society, the government, the country itself. By doing so they agree that the rights of others can be neglected, meaning their rights as well. They are not supposed to be supported by anyone after commiting acts of crime and inhumanity. But throwing heaps of them in pits because the majority still upholds the law? It will bring the same destructive agenda to the social values as those criminals do.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Kiyoshi; Yes, look that one up on Google. That place is, of course, called " Australia".

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Humanity still has ways to go about the final solution, but abolishing the death penalty is only right.

Yes, and I am sure the loved ones of the murdered victim would be getting plenty of rest knowing that the person who killed their loved one is getting free room and board on our dime while being able to live out the rest of their life.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Yes, and I am sure the loved ones of the murdered victim would be getting plenty of rest knowing that the person who killed their loved one is getting free room and board on our dime while being able to live out the rest of their life.

If we could execute killers with 100% certainty that we are always executing the right person, then the death penalty would be a good idea.

But better to give someone 'free room and board' for the rest of their life, in a prison cell with prison food, than to accidentally execute the wrong person sometimes.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Removal of the death penalty is partly to blame for the moral and social decline in Europe. EU membership forbids the death penalty. If you commit murder you have chosen to take the life of another. You have therefore forfeited your own right to life. I fully support the death penalty for murder, rape and paedophilia where the evidence is irrefutable.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

I fully support the death penalty for murder, rape and paedophilia where the evidence is irrefutable.

The problem is that evidence is gathered and presented by humans, and humans are fallible. People make mistakes, relevant information is excluded due to potentially prejudicial reasons, and any of a host of other things.

There has never been a justice system with capital punishment where innocents have not been periodically executed.

The problem with capital punishment isn't in killing the guilty, it's in killing the innocent.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

It is not about being 100% sure about the criminal being the criminal, it is about the fact that you actually murder him, the only difference is you use the law and do not have to feel bad about it, or so you think. What rest does it bring that the criminal would be hanged? Electrocuted? The victim would not be there to voice their opinion anymore. The point of bringing rest to the family of the victim? Eye for an eye, as in medieval but now supported by the state? Does a lifeless body of the villain make them feel, what, better? A slaughted in the name of Justice? Making the tax payers pay for inmates upkeep and supporting them in their second lives in the prison does not solve many problems (but more than death penalty ever could), but supporting death penalty can very well be considered a crime against humanity.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Japan's methods to persecution has been criticized, even Japan does not persecute many many years. In other countries, they use syringe to his her body just before midnight to let him her dies peacefully. Many people insisted Japan is more humanitarian by not killing right away but . Japan they enjoy food TV shows every day. Not stopping but expediting.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Removal of the death penalty is partly to blame for the moral and social decline in Europe.

This is some another kind of insanity. Disagreement of senselessly, some madmen could justify it by saying "Justice", taking another life, TO BE CONSIDERED a moral decline? For what it is worth, by your twisted standards the islamic countries are way ahead in their moral values due to the citizens' rights... astonishing.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

It is the same in most Countries, kill someone do a bit of time, this is absolutely rediculous. If you kill someone you should pay with your life!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

if you kill someone you should pay with your life!

As I mentioned a few posts back, the problem isn't with having killers pay with their lives, it's with innocents having to pay for crimes they didn't commit with their lives.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

JFBA is trying. to prevent I Innocent people executed because sometimes it happens.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Finally, Japan's progressive liberals is coming up.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Two things: 1) Paedophilia is a thought, child rape or possession of child porn would be the crime. Arresting someone for paedophilia would be like arresting someone for thinking about killing their boss (but never making any plans).

2) Some say the death penalty is unjust because innocents are possibly killed. The issue with that logic is that it extends to imprisonment. Imprisonment is unjust because some innocents are possibly imprisoned. And by the way, an innocent that was imprisoned can be freed, but they can never get their years back that they had lost...money doesn't turn back the clock.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Some say the death penalty is unjust because innocents are possibly killed. The issue with that logic is that it extends to imprisonment. Imprisonment is unjust because some innocents are possibly imprisoned.

Yeah, but unlike the death penalty, when found to be innocent, they can be released. With the death penalty they can just be dead.

an innocent that was imprisoned can be freed, but they can never get their years back that they had lost...money doesn't turn back the clock.

That's right, but at least they can be released to live the remainder of their life free, unlike an innocent who has been executed. They can just be dead.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Forgot to add to pt1: If we execute anyone who has been found guilty of rape, child or adult, we will likely see the increase in killing the victim since they're going to be executed anyway. They may even burn the body to remove any signs of rape - which in of itself would lower the offence in the law (murder without evidence of rape).

That leads me to respond to Strangerland. A child who was the victim of rape is still alive, whereas the child who was the victim of rape and murder is still dead. Be careful when making the punishment not match the crime (not directing at you, Strangerland). It would make more sense to kill a killer and to rape a rapist.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Be careful when making the punishment not match the crime (not directing at you, Strangerland). It would make more sense to kill a killer and to rape a rapist

As I've said repeatedly, the problem isn't in killing the guilty, it's in killing the innocents. And innocents are sometimes executed in every system that has the death penalty.

Better to imprison killers for life than to execute a single innocent person.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Rapists, child molesters, gropers don't get death sentence

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am surprised that some of the lawyers were against the ending of the death penalty.

I feel fairly certain that behind all the words from clients, revenge is the real goal but it doesn`t really achieve anything. The victim is dead, the bad guy is dead and the family, while saying they are pleased with the result must know the victim isn't returned to them. Life with or without parole is a good compromise with a minimum sentence before parole is considered. It will certainly put the bad guy out of circulation and it might also slow down the cases of "suicide by the courts" after people kill others because they feel "bad" about themselves but would rather have the courts execute them than commit suicide. For those out to make a name for themselves, sitting in a prison and rotting is not likely to lead to their being used as a guiding force.

Finally, given the sometimes lack of solid convictions in Japan, pardoning a person after he has already been hanged doesn`t help them very much. At least if they were doing a life sentence, they would be alive to enjoy the correction of the error.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As long as death sentence exists in Japan, UN will accuse Japan as fhe most cruel country in the world. Beside that no one apply job of noose creation or neck hanging. Japan did such death sentence, though? after Tokyo trial. UN did not oppose then.Japan is too slow in modernizing criminal law so Lawyers group trying to stop annual accusation as most cruel country in the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites