Japan rules out ending death penalty despite panel's call for review

It will never happen in my lifetime. There is solid consensus in Japan encompassing both the public and policymakers in favor of executing hardcore criminals. Retribution is a big factor in Japanese justice. Victims' families often call for "the ultimate penalty" for those who done them wrong. Just read the news.

I have double feelings.

I'm against because some can or ended up innocent. But I'm also for death penalty when murder is committed.

Good. They shouldn’t abolish it.

"The government thinks it is not appropriate to abolish

Because this is Japanese way and Japanese culture?

Citing the case of Iwao Hakamata, an 88-year-old man who spent nearly half a century on death row before being acquitted in a recent retrial over a 1966 quadruple murder, the panel's report said, "Once a mistake occurs, it takes a very long time to correct it."

He need to spent years of his life, preparing there's one morning where prison staff will inform him.

Today is the day, in Japan inmates won't be notified when execution until the morning of execution day.

Because this is Japan, making inmates have no idea when their last day.

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/185jdt0/til_that_prisoners_in_japan_who_are_sentenced_to/?rdt=46019

killing murdered saves us money so I am all for it

@Dango bong

Only if were 100% proven, however in Japan there's Japan hostage justice where suspect being forced to confess. Not sure those people are really guilty.

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%BA%E8%B3%AA%E5%8F%B8%E6%B3%95

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/03/19/japan/crime-legal/hostage-justice-renewed-spotlight/

Hit back when attacked. That’s the normal and healthy reaction of all living creatures, from microbes to humans. Death penalty is a necessary evil. To avoid cases like Hakamata, Japan should make its criminal procedures transparent: recording all interrogations and full disclosure of evidence by the prosecution.

Considering their extremely flawed justice system, having the death penalty is just a bad idea.

I’m fully against it for multiple reasons. The most important being wrongfully convicted, mentally subnormal or ill and they could extend it to lesser crimes.

@Albert I'm with you on this. For brutal, premeditated murders, the death penalty may be an adequate sentence, but only - and only! - if guilt can be proven without any reasonable doubt. Currently, the necessary guard rails are not in place, meaning that innocent people end up on death row.

@Aly Rustom Fully agree!

Keep the death penalty. The benefits greatly outweigh the detriments.

I support the death penalty in principle, but have serious reservations about it being used in Japan due to this country's topsy-turvy "justice" system.

death penalty is barbaric and should be abolish in a modern society.

KEEP IT,

I was once against it and still is but considering the latest rise is Fatal Crimes in Japan especially against the helpless and defenseless including children I am now for keeping it because it works as a deterrent in many cases.

Those who are against it should go and talk the victims families and loved ones first .

Very hard one to call either way and it's up to each country to make that decision for themselves. The 'could this be the day?' method does seem particularly cruel, but I guess that too may be the point. The ridiculously long time between court cases and appeals may be a good place to start if the old system needs reform, which I think many would agree that it does.

That room too...... creepy, like something out of a Stanley Kubrick film.

MeiyouwentiToday  07:56 am JST

Hit back when attacked. That’s the normal and healthy reaction of all living creatures, from microbes to humans

Don’t you think it is man’s unique nature to be able to rise above his instincts?

It's all politics. If the Japanese public turned against capital punishment, politicians would be scrambling to decry it and call for it to be scrapped.

Politicians are the ultimate "which way's the wind blowing" people, and they will only do what they think will be of personal benefit to them. So the only way to work towards the abolition of the death penalty in Japan is to convince voters.

I’m going to say my opinion here and honestly I know I will be downvoted in this platform by some people.

The death penalty is an outdated and ridiculously cruel inhumane way to get rid of a problems.

A government that allow such a brutal system is no more than the same murderers who kill innocents.

The state should elevate above the mere “revenge” system and apply a just punishment for such elements.

The death penalty does not deter other murders, it does not save money.

It is a punishment. A fitting and suitable punishment for those who take other lives.

If your concern is that someone innocent may be found guilty then why have a criminal justice system at all.

Well done Japan keep that trap door swinging.

It is a punishment. A fitting and suitable punishment for those who take other lives.

Still invalid. The punishment do not define the criminal but the people that uses it. If a country makes a public appeal to defend human rights as a priority, then it contradicts itself by using the death penalty (which in the case of Japan is just one of the many contradictions in its policies).

It is terribly self-defeating when a country says "killing people is not an acceptable solution for anything because it infringes on the most important human right, and to solve this problem it we are going to kill people."

If your concern is that someone innocent may be found guilty then why have a criminal justice system at all.

Having a criminal justice system do not guarantee innocent people will not be punished.

AlbertToday  07:03 am JST

I have double feelings.

I'm against because some can or ended up innocent. But I'm also for death penalty when murder is committed.

i guess it depends if we as a society are happy to kill someone who is innocent. Knowing we deprive a mother and a father their son. I also think the death penalty is disproportionately assigned to men than women for the same crime. Shaken baby syndrome case comes to mind in the USA.

Which is clearly not what anyone wants.

but what does the penalty “really serve”? Does it “truly” work as a deterrent? Is there any evidence that it has stopped any one killing someone? If so I would think the USA would be the safest place. China wouldn’t have any murders either.

what advantage is there to canceling death penalty?

we will never kill an innocent person. We can reverse any miscarriages of justice. Parents can still see their kids. (Even though the guilty did a terrible crime) but the parent’s shouldn’t have to bare that burden. Is the death penalty disproportionately give to those with mental health conditions? we can let the guilty rot for decades, but some may need treatment .We can also, for some, and there are many, who have killed,(for whatever reason) managed to turn their life around. For those that can’t. They can stay in jail. Liam Brady and Myra Hindley come to mind. But someone like Mary Bell, went on to become a parent herself. Finally for me, would you be happy to see your own kids killed by the state for revenge. Or does it only apply to other peoples kids who killed. Yes I understand the killer has taken away someone else family members but I think the risk of mistakes, miscarriages, prejudices are real. I’d rather let them rot in jail. But that’s just me and today we seem to live in a world of easy answers. There’s more to this than hang em high! Next!

KiplingToday  11:46 am JST

If your concern is that someone innocent may be found guilty then why have a criminal justice system at all.

Well done Japan keep that trap door swinging.

because to kill or convict someone for something they didn’t do is NOT JUSTICE while leaving the real perpetrator free. If you’re not worried about that, maybe you should never sit on a jury. Certainly not able to think critically. But it only applies to “other people” not you!

Unfortunately, like in the US, the death penalty is applied somewhat arbitrarily in Japan, and is more like to fall upon defendants who can't afford a good lawyer. Look at Joji Obara, the wealthy businessman with a house in Denenchofu who drugged and killed at least two foreign women and possibly others they don't know about. He offered to pay compensation to the Blackman family and weaved and dodged the death sentence he fully deserved. (Despite his also declining a psychological examination that might have helped his case.) After 30 years he might even be eligible for parole. A poor laborer like Isao Hakamada didn't even have a competent lawyer to pick holes in how the police obtained a confession or the questionable evidence presented during the trial.

Beyond the point of abolishing the death penalty or not, which is a a valid debate with pros and cons, Japan is not giving an image of a civilized country by using hanging. This is just beyond savagery to use that and it boggles the mind they still didn’t move away from that form of execution.

The punishment do not define the criminal but the people that uses it. If a country makes a public appeal to defend human rights as a priority,

Using the human rights argument is grotesque. That’s not the point. The victims of violent criminals had also human rights and they clearly were not protected. The real question is, is primitive revenge, which is really what it comes too, a valid way of expression of justice.

Using the human rights argument is grotesque. That’s not the point

That is the whole point, Japan openly recognize human rights as a priority to defend, that means it puts itself under the obligation to do it. Doubles standards and self contradiction only weakens anything the country has to say about anything.

The victims of violent criminals had also human rights and they clearly were not protected. 

And because of that a criminal is punished. Until this point there is zero contradiction, and zero need to go into the Schrödinger's rights, where human life is the absolute priority, except when not.

The real question is, is primitive revenge, which is really what it comes too, a valid way of expression of justice.*

Which makes us go back to human rights which are the argument that prove this is not the case. In a completely imaginary scenario where people were able to satiate a primitive desire of revenge by stabbing the picture of the criminal (again, this is obviously not the case, but for the sake of argument lets say it is). This "solution" would still be "primitive revenge" but a completely acceptable thing to do since no human right is being ignored for no valid reason. In the case of the death penalty the human right to life is being ignored by a government, without any actual need since the criminal can be imprisoned for life so it will no longer be any danger for society, punishment is done, safety is maintained and no transgression of human rights is done from a country that says they should be respected.

I have always supported the death penalty since my younger years. caveat when proven without doubt, for taking another human's life. Their needs to be the ultimate, that then can transcend down for penalties of similar nature but not proven in a sterile verdict. Many death pens at time of international conflicts, are not sterile. e.g ... I zip the lip

If a way to rehabilitate murderers had been found already then they should abolish the death penalty

I think the population strongly supports the death penalty in Japan. The government is appointed by and working in the name of the said population, so there can be no other outcome, despite what all panels of "experts" might have to day about it.

I was once against it and still is but considering the latest rise is Fatal Crimes in Japan especially against the helpless and defenseless including children I am now for keeping it because it works as a deterrent in many cases.

Your undermining your own argument. The fact that they are rising clearly shows that the "deterrent" isn't really that efficient.

 think the population strongly supports the death penalty in Japan. The government is appointed by and working in the name of the said population, so there can be no other outcome, despite what all panels of "experts" might have to day about it.

If that were the case the Government would have to recognize and correct this incongruent position by recanting its pledge to promote and protect human rights according to international law, only then it can justify keeping the death penalty. A proper declaration of intentions that would clarify that the population is against the protection of human rights because it is in the way of finding pleasure in the death of criminals.

Of course the government will never do that and instead will continue with its "cognitive dissonance" of killing people to demonstrate that killing people is not justified.

The only death penalty in Japan should be through Seppuku.

"Seppuku is a Japanese ritual where a samurai kills himself by cutting into his belly. After one had done so, a second person would cut off his head. It was thought that seppuku was an honorable way to die."

Let them die with courage and honor in the old ways. Or just remove the head. If that isn't the best form of deterrent, then death must be no deterrent at all for some.

/jk

It is terribly self-defeating when a country says "killing people is not an acceptable solution for anything because it infringes on the most important human right, and to solve this problem it we are going to kill people."

The death penalty is not to "solve a problem". The victim (as usual forgotten by the anti death side) cannot be brought back to life. The death penalty is a punishment and only a punishment. The criminal will be as dead as the victim. No more joy, no more family life, not even the pleasures of eating and feeling the sunshine. Perfect justice.

A government should never have a legal method of killing citizens.

Mr KiplingToday  04:47 pm JST

The death penalty is not to "solve a problem". The victim (as usual forgotten by the anti death side) cannot be brought back to life. The death penalty is a punishment and only a punishment. The criminal will be as dead as the victim. No more joy, no more family life, not even the pleasures of eating and feeling the sunshine. Perfect justice.

Do you have any exceptions?

How do you decide where the line is drawn between, YOUR HANG, YOU ROT IN JAIL and YOU can get a chance to rehabilitate?

Everyone? I don't think anyone forgets the victims. And ofcourse the innocent person killed in the name of justice would also be a victim... but collectively, we as a society said...HANG THEM,

Could you explain how you will NEVER make a mistake? I get your side, but your not convincing me that its worth the risk apart from a sense of YEAH, I DID it. We hung them. Arent we grea!. we got revenge. convince us to support your idea?

Perfect justice.

Completely wrong, revenge is not justice, and reducing society to the same level as the criminal is not something desirable, even the Japanese government says so, completely contradicting itself when it chooses to ignore what it claims as a goal.

Let them die with courage and honor in the old ways. Or just remove the head. If that isn't the best form of deterrent, then death must be no deterrent at all for some.

What? I have a better solution, hanging is a better option, it's swift and a lot less messy, no need to drag it out and dramatize it, takes about 1-2 min and is done.

Let them die with courage and honor in the old ways.

Hahahaha lol what.

Convicted of crimes heinous enough to hang, let them die with honor? Who's the idiot who said that

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

One thing can be said for sure.

The death penalty is a deterrent. The person who is executed will never murder another person again and, thus, be deterred.

The death penalty is a deterrent. The person who is executed will never murder another person again and, thus, be deterred

So is life imprisonment, with the added advantage of not being self contradictory for the government and of course not inspiring people to commit murder precisely for the desire of being given the death penalty. That would make it a much better deterrent.

All good points above. I think it comes down to finally giving some closure to the family of the victims who have lost someone often in the most callous , abhorrently violent and dehumanizing of ways. We can never even start to comprehend what that would feel like so have to realize our opinions are just that, uninformed ones.

These poor families have to live with the images of the final hours of their beloved playing out in the minds , day in day out, for the rest of their lives and knowing the perpetrators is alive and breathing, getting three squares a day from the state in a safe warm room with a bed. In clear cut cases where there is zero doubt of what transpired the humane thing may be to let the hangman’s noose swing. It’s a horrible call, but it’s for the families.

With due respect, countries which have abolished this penalty are not seeing improvement but deteriorating condition both in social and prison management. Then, the victims are brutally murdered without being baby ven a choice but the murderer, once proven beyond doubt, it is only a fair judgement to no one's fault but doer alone.

 It’s a horrible call, but it’s for the families.

No it is not, endless other options (like therapy which can be extremely effective) are available and that don't require the government to completely defeat the whole "human rights" stance.

What if a family says it will not recover unless the criminal is tortured for 10 years? would that justify this punishment in your eyes? after all it can be said to be "for the families" as well.

With due respect, countries which have abolished this penalty are not seeing improvement but deteriorating condition both in social and prison management.

With due respect, countries which have abolished this penalty are not seeing improvement but deteriorating condition both in social and prison management. 

Any source to support this claim? because there seem to be plenty of examples to refute it so it would be required proof not only that it can happen, but that it would inevitably happen in all and every condition for this to become an argument.

Insisting that the nation should descend to the same level as the criminals to punishment is not exactly a compelling argument either. Specially if the point is to protect life as a human right.

Like I said mate, unless one of your family members is killed in macabre conditions, we don’t really even qualify for an opinion. Therapy? Please.

Ricky Kaminski13Nov. 16 08:10 am JST

The perpetrators are also getting zero entertainment, one hour outside, isolation, and military style regimentation every day of the year. Nothing to be jealous about. The law is not about getting people revenge.

Like I said mate, unless one of your family members is killed in macabre conditions, we don’t really even qualify for an opinion. Therapy? Please.

Obviously invalid argument, do gynecologists can decide what to recommend only after birthing? obviously not, this means that actual professionals have valuable knowledge that you can't just dismiss because it disproves your personal opinion. This is as valid as saying that you can only have an opinion if your family member was wrongfully killed for a crime it was later demonstrated he didn't commit.

Address the arguments if you want to prove you are right, because if you run from them you are proving the opposite.