crime

Serial child killer Tsutomu Miyazaki, 2 others executed

85 Comments

Tsutomu Miyazaki, the death row inmate convicted of murdering four young girls in 1988 and 1989 in Tokyo and Saitama Prefecture, was executed Tuesday, the Justice Ministry said.

Miyazaki, 45, was among the three death row inmates hanged the same day. With their execution, the number of inmates executed under the orders of Justice Minister Kunio Hatoyama, who has been in the post since last August, came to 13.

''After careful deliberation, we executed three inmates today,'' Hatoyama said at a news conference.

Miyazaki, detained at the Tokyo Detention House, was executed two years and four months after the Supreme Court finalized his death sentence in February 2006, which ended trials of him that had lasted 16 years.

On Jan 17, 2006, the top court ruled that an extreme character disorder could be found in Miyazaki, but that he was completely mentally competent at the time of the crime, denying he had any mental disorder that would make him unable to bear criminal responsibility.

The top court said Miyazaki abducted and killed the four girls in Tokyo and neighboring Saitama Prefecture ''to satisfy his own sexual desire and appetite to own videotapes with footage of corpses.''

He confessed to having killed four girls, aged between four and seven, in Tokyo and its suburbs and eating some of the remains of two of them.

Miyazaki mutilated the bodies of the victims, slept next to the corpses and drank their blood.

He sent letters to the media under a woman's name claiming responsibility for the crimes and sent a box containing the remains of a slaughtered girl to her family.

In a letter to Kyodo News just before the Supreme Court ruling, Miyazaki maintained his innocence and said he thought he ''did a good thing.''

During the nearly two-decade judicial process, Miyazaki never uttered a word of remorse to the victims and their families. He cryptically said that a "rat man" -- a cartoonish image of which he drew -- committed the crimes.

He also distanced himself from his family. When his father, unable to come to terms with what his son did, jumped into a river to his death in 1994, Miyazaki wrote to a publisher: "I feel refreshed."

But court-appointed psychiatrists agreed with defense lawyers that Miyazaki was mentally ill. One finding was that Miyazaki suffered from a multiple personality disorder, while a second said he was schizophrenic.

Hirokazu Hasegawa, a clinical psychologist who saw Miyazaki in 2006, said the killer believed his crimes would resurrect his grandfather, who died three months before the grandson committed his first crime in 1988.

"What he told me lastly was 'Please tell the world that I'm a gentle man,' " Hasegawa said at the time.

The two other executed inmates are Shinji Mutsuda, 37, and Yoshio Yamasaki, 73.

Mutsuda was convicted of killing the 32-year-old operator and the 33-year-old manager of a sex service business at a Tokyo apartment in 1995, stealing some 200,000 yen and drawing 40 million yen from the bank account of the operator in conspiracy with his twin brother.

Yamasaki was convicted of killing a 49-year-old woman in Miyagi Prefecture in 1985 and a 48-year-old man in Kagawa Prefecture in 1990 in conspiracy with acquaintances of his.

Amnesty International Japan criticized the fast pace of executions under Hatoyama, saying in a statement, ''The latest executions were carried out only two months after the previous ones. That indicates Japan is following a path of mass executions.''

With 137 countries having legally or effectively terminated capital punishment, Japan is going against the international trend of abolishing the death penalty, the human rights group said. Following Tuesday's executions, the number of inmates on death row now stands at 102.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobutaka Machimura suggested at a separate news conference that the acceleration of executions reflects the recent increase in death sentences and the number of death row inmates.

© Wire reports

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

85 Comments
Login to comment

Good-bye and good riddance, Miyazaki! Hopefully Japan will be able to string up the Aum Shinrikkyo gang in the next year or two after Shoko Asahara runs out of appeals.

The use of the death penalty in Japan is not intended as a crime deterrent. It is a means of exacting what the Japanese feel is the proper punishment for certain crimes, especially the most serious crimes in which the perpetrator shows no remorse for his or her actions; as was the case with Miyazaki.

The issue of whether or not to use capital punishment should be one for the Japanese to decide for themselves, and not foreigners.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sad sad day

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree pathat. and this animal deserved to die. that fact that he did not want to makes it a more fitting punishment for what he did. I hope he was petrified during his last few moments.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is real big news. I was actually here in Japan when Tsutomu was on the rampage! He was probably the worst serial killer in recent Japanese history. Although I am against the death penalty, Tsutomu deserved the drop more than anybody on Japan's death row. At the same time, they probably needed his cell for the SOB from Akihabara. Rot in Hell Tsutomu!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This guy was seriously nasty. Google him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The death penalty works again. Too bad it doesn't bring the girls back.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Too bad it doesn't bring the girls back.

Exactly why I disagree with the death penalty. The perpetrators of these heinous crimes have no respect for their lives or the lives of their victims, so by killing them they get exactly what they want. I would much rather see them subjected to 40 years of torture to reflect on their errors. Bring back the stocks and public floggings! That is punishment!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So long, sucker

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The issue of whether or not to use capital punishment should be one for the Japanese to decide for themselves, and not foreigners.>

Huh? Is Japans capital punishment system under some sort of siege from "foreigners" ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bring back the stocks and public floggings! That is punishment!>

Yes good idea. Bring 'em back - those middle ages. That's human progress.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

leitmotiv - Yes good idea. Bring 'em back - those middle ages. That's human progress.....

And, the death penalty is what? An advance? The only difference is, it's done in a closed room and not in public!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

While I agree that Miyazaki is probably the best candidate for the death penalty and I hope the families of the girls he killed feel somehow relieved at his passing, I disagree that only 'we Japanese' can comment on the death penalty as pathat demands. If that is the case - in which foreigners can not comment on something in another country - Japanese have no right to talk about crime, genocide, or anything else in another country. Indeed, they should not be allowed to complain about anti-whaling activities.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

After seeing his picture I remember what a dirt-bag he was -- but that wouldn't be a nice thing to say about bags full or dirt...

Yes, he was sick; however, he could have just sexually molested them, but no, he had the presence of mind to cover his crime by killing them. I'd like to have pulled the lever on this guy...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Killing people for killing as way to show that our society doesn't tolerate killing is hypocritical at best. I know what he did was as horrible as it gets, but we are not morally superior for killing him. I'm not British, so I do not understand the need to have public executions either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good riddance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This man was a real monster. He didn't just kill his little victims; one little girl he burned, put the ashes in a box and left them on her parents' doorstep with a letter describing what he'd done. Really twisted little creep.

He certainly did not deserve to live.....but the death penalty is nothing more than murder by the state. He should have been left to rot in a windowless cell with a bucket in the corner, with meals of slops and ditchwater.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The death penalty is no advance. 'Twas sarcasm - Fair dinkum. Perhaps I should have posted an official sarcasm label on my post?

I know it will be an unpopular view on this thread about such an uncontroversial case (in terms of evidence and conviction) - but I dont believe any state has the right to take a person's life. Including Japan. Including US, etc...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Williamsmith:

" Killing people for killing as way to show that our society doesn't tolerate killing is hypocritical at best. "

Showing anything is not the point. The death penalty is an appropriate response by society to some behaviour, period. Nothing more, nothing less. And sympathy by some for creates of this type (google him, if you don`t know) while not giving a thought to the victims is hypocritical at best.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WillB

Showing anything is not the point. The death penalty is an appropriate response by society to some behaviour, period. Nothing more, nothing less.>

Very nice. And who made you society's spokeperson for what is best or most "appropriate" respose of society to some behavior?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WillB

The death penalty is 'one' response by society to some behaviour. It may not be the best and it is surely abused - both now and in the past.

And no one I've read on this forum or any other has expressed any sympathy for this cretin at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo:

Miyazaki maintained his innocence and said he thinks he ‘‘did a good thing.’’ Throughout his trial, he did not apologize to the victims or their families.

The man showed absolutely no remorse for his actions. You may believe that "the death penalty is nothing more than murder by the state", but you also know how the Japanese look upon vile murderers like Miyazaki and Takuma who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions and apologize for them.

We should let unrepentant mass murderers "rot in a windowless cell" on your tax yen, not mine and the great majority of the Japanese people who support capital punishment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pathat

We should let unrepentant mass murderers "rot in a windowless cell" on your tax yen, not mine and the great majority of the Japanese people who support capital punishment.>

Yes in this case its difficult to get beyond the emotional context. But what if there was some significant ambiguity about the case against an "unrepentant mass murder"? Perhaps one of the infamous "confessions" under dubious circumstances from the Japanese police as the key evidence? Would you still be screaming for the death penalty?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On Jan 17, 2006, the top court ruled.........

Why did they wait 30 months to hang him? There should be an expressway for creatures like this!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo - "He should have been left to rot in a windowless cell with a bucket in the corner, with meals of slop and ditchwater."

Wouldn't that amount to torture?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

30 months is the expressway here; it usually takes over 10 years to carry out the sentence. The moment the sentence is passed by the court and all the appeals have been exhausted, I think its up to the Justice Minister to sign the execution order at his discretion. Probably depends if he is having a bad day, or his mistress is too demanding or whatever, would set him off to signing an order or a number of execution orders...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whoops, I created a monster. I am sorry that I made mention of my views regarding the death penalty. I don't think this is a suitable thread to discuss its pros and cons. In my earlier post, I was just so shocked that the Japanese government finally went ahead with this execution. What Miyazaki did (his crimes) and their impact on the Japanese pysche cannot be understated. In the minds of people who are old enough to remember the mid to late 80s here in Japan, this guy was the personification of evil. As my good friend Cleo pointed out, Tsutomu was just not a child killer and a pedophile, but rather he tormented the families of his victims. He was also one of the first high-profile otaku killers here in Japan. When the cops finally nabbed him, there were a number of cops who suffered the symptoms of PTSD when his collection of videos and books was discovered. Good riddance....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To WillB: My sympathy? I expressed no sympathy for Miyazaki. But if I did it surely would not create other types like this butcher. What a stupid thing to say. If revenge was an appropriate response then our world would be in very good shape.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think people on here who say, "I'd like to throw the switch myself", had better think twice about then commenting on how sick the guy was.

He definitely was sick... VERY sick, but like Cleo I think the death penalty is no more than murder itself, and the guy did indeed deserve to rot forever. People like this guy often carry out killings here knowing it's a form of 'suicide by state/cop'. Look at the recent rampage in Tokyo! Do you think the guy would have done it if he knew he would just rot in prison for life instead of getting the death penalty (which he certainly will)?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If revenge was an appropriate response then our world would be in very good shape.

Very well said.

Sarge - It's only torture if they put a cloth over his face and pour the ditchwater over it. And give him natto slops. I don't think I would have lost much sleep over that, even.

How much tax yen does it take for ditchwater, slops and a bucket?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't see why this is not an appropriate place to discuss the death penalty - since its use is precisely what the story is about.

Assuming this man was guilty of these horrific crimes, then I have no sympathy for him personally and every sympathy for the families of the victims. The death penalty, however, is fundamentally wrong and should be banned. For the state to lower itself to the level of the killer is reprehensible. If we are to progress towards a more civilised future, then such a sanction should never be used anywhere. It has never been proven as a deterrent nor, obviously, as a means of rehabilitation. Murdering the murderer makes no sense whatever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Frontandcentre:

" For the state to lower itself to the level of the killer is reprehensible. "

False analogy! If the state "lowered itself to the level of the killer", it would rape him, torture him, film the proceedings, and tease his relatives with his death. None of this is suggested here. That is also why mentioning "revenge" is misguided. Revenge would look differently. Removing this monster from society is not "revenge".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

An Eye for an Eye makes everybody blind.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

williamsmith,

“…we are not morally superior for killing him…”

Who ever said the protection and preservation of society was about moral superiority? “Moral Superiority” is a largely relative concept debated more by armchair philosophers than by real people trying to prevent their children from being brutally slaughtered by madmen. From a practical sense, “moral superiority” sounds great when you aren’t on the receiving end of something as horrendous as what this man did to four children, but when you’re the victim, I can assure you, it isn’t quite as black and white. Moral superiority can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. Not allowing warped bastards like Miyazaki to live after the crimes he committed is certainly one moral high road of many.

Fair dinkum’,

“I would much rather see them subjected to 40 years of torture to reflect on their errors. Bring back the stocks and public floggings! That is punishment!”

And any moral superiority you might have claimed in your argument against the death penalty essential went out the window with your suggestions of floggings and public humiliation. State-sponsored execution of the worst-of-the-worst criminals is abhorrent to you, yet you experience no qualms about 40 years of public torture? Interesting.

Let’s be honest here. The death penalty serves multiple purposes: Yes, it is punitive. Yes, it is an exacting of revenge, albeit an immediate and permanent one. But it also serves to protect society, both physically and, yes, spiritually, for lack of a better word. I really don’t know how to put it into words, but knowing that the kind of person who committed these sorts of crimes continued to benefit from the protections afforded by the very society he (or she) so brazenly spit in the face of - e.g., locked in a cell, partaking of food, medical care, and housing provided by society until he died a natural death . . . I can’t do it. And I don’t think a lot of people can, no matter how noble we aspire to be.

If this were an argument about the flaws in the way the death penalty is handed down, then yes, I’d most certainly be against the execution of a potentially innocent people – I think any decent human being would. But this is NOT such a case and Miyazaki is no such unfortunate innocent. He’s a monster.

I, for one, am glad he's gone, and don't feel a solitary twinge of guilt that his execution was paid for in part by my tax yen. No, his execution doesn’t bring these girls back. But neither does locking him up for life. Good riddance to him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have long had mixed feelings about the death penalty. In cases such as this one, it seems fine and dandy to me. In other cases, I have too much of a doubt... I think the arguments regarding the death penalty as a deterrant are misguided. History has shown repeatedly that some people will commit crimes no matter what the penalties are. However, One could argue that in a case such as this, the death penalty is a sort of safety measure for the public. After all, now that he has been executed, Miyazaki can never escape prison to kill again. (THAT, IMHO, is in fact a good thing). As for leaving someone in a hole to rot..well, is that not just a form of SLOW execution?? My point here is simply that life in prison (with the chance of escape--however slim) is really nothing more than a more drawn out process of execution. Some might even say it is LESS humane than most modern methods of execution.

My heart and prayers go to the families and the souls of Miyazaki's victims. I hope that they can find some sort of peace.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Following the logic, prisoners should not be killed or punished in any way. They should be rehabilitated! You end up with something like British prisons, overflowing with people who quite enjoy the life in those brightly-painted social club cum dormitories.

No rehabilitation takes place. Society degrades.

How to punish him if you shouldn't punish him? Is all punishment torture?

Should we feel sympathy for him? Should we feel anything for him? Why was he born? I feel sympathy for him, but I feel that I shouldn't be feeling sympathy for him. I should be hating him and loathing him and baying for his blood.

How's about... Should we ask him to spend the rest of his life on a treadmill generating electricity for the state, in order to pay for his slops and dishwater? Or would Sarge call that torture?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For met there is one reason where the death-penalty fails miserably as a deterrent. The state can only execute you ONCE, doesn't matter if you killed/tortured, etc one or many people.

Also executions these days are done as "humane" and quick as possible via injections, etc.

So many will say if I get the Death Penalty I will make it worthwhile.

FYI, I am against the death-penalty and happy that my country abolished it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I always remember when Gov. Cuomo was running for president many years ago. He was staunchly against the death penalty due to his (warped) religious beliefs -- the one that allows pedophiles to masquerade as priests. A reporter asked him if his own daughter were raped and murdered would he still be against the death penalty. I still remember his answer : "I will not dignify that question with an answer." I'd bet my summer bonus he would slit the rapist throat with a carpet knife in a heart beat.

My point is that all these posters who live in that self-righteous ether of praising the sanctity of life blah, blah, blah would sing a different tune if it was your daughter, grand-daughter, etc. that was killed by this monster...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The idea of Justice is that of a Moral Superiority, that's what gives the state the right to put people in the "armchair" and dispense justice. The judiciary should be removed from "real people", especially victims, to ensure a the impartiality, clarity and fairness of the system. Death as a punishment being "one moral high road of many" is correct, but one that I don't share. I believe human kind is wholly incapable of evolving, due in no small part to how we treat those we feel have done us wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB - I never mentioned revenge, even if someone else did. State-sanctioned revenge would result in anarchy.

Ultimately he was executed for murder. Deliberately putting someone to death is, to my mind, murder. Therefore what the state has done to him is effectively what he did to these poor children, in terms of the ultimate consequence rather than the horrific details.

Added to the fact that innocent people are known to have been executed, that it does not act as a deterrent and has no impact on the crime rate, nor in Japan is there any twisted, underlying religious justification for it, in practical terms the arguments in support of capital punishment crumble rapidly away.

But my main objection is one of principle - for the state to kill as punishment for killing is plainly absurd.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tatanka - good point, although it doesn't prove anything. On the contrary - it shows that people overwhelmed by strong emotions should not create or even influence laws. I'm pretty sure if my loved ones were killed by, say, a freak lawn-mover accident, I'd want the maker of that lawn mover and probably also the store clerk who sold it to me drawn and quartered - should such law be created?.

I am not comparing brutal murderers to lawn-movers - I am just giving the most ridiculous example I can think of (air conditioning was switched off in my office to conserve energy - it's really the best I can come up with right now) to show that strong emotions, especially grief and the desire for vengeance, are never good advisers when matters of law are concerned.

Personally I am still not sure if death penalty is a good way to go - my animal instincts tell me it is, but logically thinking about it, there is no conclusive data on death penalty being a crime deterrent and killing criminals doesn't really change much - it doesn't bring murder victims back to life. Of course there's still the question of what to do with all these murderers, but honestly I have no answer to this one - it's too complicated for me to comprehend and that's why I'm very glad I'm not responsible for law creation in any country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They wait too long to execute. In China, it's 10 minutes and then a bullet to the head. A couple of appeals and 3-4 years to think about it is enough, isn't it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From a philosophical point of view, the classical liberalism theory says that individual life and any private property cannot be trespassed, for any reason. So the government is not entitled to take away life. If you think your government should be allowed to decide who is living and who's dying, your ideology is clearly not liberal (in the classical meaning, not the modern american meaning). Prison is not about punishment. It is about protecting the society from dangerous individuals. Those who are in favor of death penalty think about the carceral system as a punishment, not as a protective measure. Rehabilition is the next step that for some individuals let them reintegrate the society.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would like to add that of course that guy was a monster and people like him should never be released, but I strongly oppose to death penalty for the above reasons.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zen Builder:

" "An Eye for an Eye makes everybody blind." ... "the death-penalty fails miserably as a deterrent." "

Strawman, strawman!

Executing this monster after a proper trial is not "an eye for an eye". That would look very different.

And nobody was talking about deterrent. Executing him is a a measured response to monstrous behaviour, and means closure for the family of the victims. Housing and feeding him at the expense of taxpayers (i.e. theirs), and eventually releasing him is not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the poster-boy for the death penalty...good bye and good riddance

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Uh, why do many of you say that it doesn't deter crime? Of course it doesn't. It isn't meant to. It is meant to remove them from society with no chance to get back into it. As others have said, now he cannot escape prison. I realize that the chances are slim, but as long as he was alive, there was always the chance that he could've escaped. If he had, what then? Do any of you honestly believe that he would just go into hiding and leave everyone alone? Doubtful. He would go and hunt again. I am for the death penalty when guilt can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Unfortunately, the US (my home country) doesn't do too great of a job of proving guilt. In this case, hang him high!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Because the death sentence advocates always claim it is a deterrent.

Just find it strange that people want the death sentence for someone that killed 1 person and YET people that extorted money, drug dealers, people that ruined companies, etc can spend a few years in jail and than walk free to do it again.

Who caused more suffering and did more damage the murderer or the guy that ruined a company and impacted employees, investors, etc.

Of course dead people can't re-offend, neither can people imprisoned for life. But how do we know that they would re-offend, we don't as they are dead and thus never had a chance to show us either way. Good or bad. Dead people are not proof of anything besides that they are dead.

Seems to be people here are talking with their emotions and/or , personal views here and not with logic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A little chlorine for the gene pool.

Its nice to know these despicable animals will never walk the streets again, never breath the same air as the rest us, never take anything from anyone ever again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just find it strange that people want the death sentence for someone that killed 1 person and YET people that extorted money, drug dealers, people that ruined companies, etc can spend a few years in jail and than walk free to do it again.

Who caused more suffering and did more damage, the murderer or the guy that ruined a company and impacted employees, investors, etc?

That you would even try to make such a comparison is why you likely will never understand why this man deserved to die for what he did.

Of course, dead people can't re-offend...

. . . And of course, victims of murder can't rebuild their lives after being killed.

"Which is worse, imbezzelment or murder?" In a contest between the loss of material wealth and the loss of life, you're actually trying to convince people that the loss of wealth is more criminal? You can't possibly be serious. If so, that was a very poor and offensive attempt to dress up your argument against the death penalty as "logical." Is this the moral highground that you wish to espouse? Stocks and bonds above the life of a four-year old child? That's one moral compass I'll be sure to avoid following, thank you very much.

If you truly believe your position against the death penalty is free of emotion or personal opinion, then you need to step back and devote a little more time towards introspection.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Leitmotiv:

But what if there was some significant ambiguity about the case against an "unrepentant mass murder"? Perhaps one of the infamous "confessions" under dubious circumstances from the Japanese police as the key evidence? Would you still be screaming for the death penalty?

The hypothetical questions you pose about Miyazaki are irrelevant.

I basically do not support the death penalty and believe it should be used as appropriate punishment for only the most extreme criminal offenders. I believe that Miyazaki fit the bill. Mamoru Takuma did as well. The Aum gang will, too. This is also the opinion of most Japanese.

I talked with a number of Japanese co-workers today about this issue. To a man-and I only had a chance to talk to men this time-they stated their support for the death penalty for the most despicable of criminals-which is what Miyazaki was. In general, they believe that because Miyazaki showed absolutely no remorse for his actions and that he never attempted to apologize to the victims` family members for the murders he committed, then Miyazaki essentially was not a Japanese and not a human anymore. He was nothing other than a monster who was not salvageable as a human.

I do not think there is any easy answer to the issue of capital punishment. But I do believe strongly that the Japanese have to decide for themselves in the coming years how they want to retain/modify/abolish the death penalty.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WOW...by hanging. I bet that's a sight to see. No matter how bad the death penalty may seem I agree that it is necessary. For Miyazaki it was justly deserved. You cannot rehabilitate offenders like these. What's the point in having them rot in jail while tax payers pay.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zen Builder:

" Because the death sentence advocates always claim it is a deterrent. "

Can you take your strawman home, please? What hypothetical "they" say is irrelevant. Nobody here said that.

" Just find it strange that people want the death sentence for someone that killed 1 person and YET people that extorted money, drug dealers, people that ruined companies, etc can spend a few years in jail and than walk free to do it again. "

That you even consider this line of thought is sick. If someone raped, murdered, mutilated, and burnt your little daughter and then called you to tease you about it, would you still pontificate like this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Any eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Those who kill others (aside from involuntary manslaughter or a revenge killing for a family murder) should also be put to death.

If murder suspects are found to be guilty without any shred of doubt or extenuating circumstances - I'd like to see these murderers put to death the same way they killed their victims.

I'm sure those who've had their lives cut short by these sub-humans would agree to have them go through the horrors that they had to. Good on Japan to buck the international trend.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can tell you for sure, without a doubt in my mind what I would do the someone if they did those things to my little girl. For anyone who would say this:

" Just find it strange that people want the death sentence for someone that killed 1 person and YET people that extorted money, drug dealers, people that ruined companies, etc can spend a few years in jail and than walk free to do it again. "

You need to get back in touch with reality. It really isn't so bad outside of your dream world. Give it a shot, alright?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is it right to kill?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't know, is it? What would you do? Would you ask yourself as you see your family member or friend in pieces on the floor, or ashes in a box, as the man who did it is laughing at you, is it right to kill? I understand the eye for an eye argument, but at what point do you finally realize that someone like that has NO place in society, even if only in a prison somewhere sucking up your money?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bastards like Miyazaki are sick and twisted individuals who showed no mercy to their victims and are nothing more than scum. Who the hell kills children, eats parts of their bodies and then sends the remains to this childs parents? This sick bastard makes me think that even the death penalty is too good for him. Maybe the victim's parents could think of a couple of creative ways to torture scum like Miyaziki, because I sure can come up with what to do to scum like this. Any good ideas out there?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As others have said Miyazaki was a poster boy for the death penalty. Not much rehabilitation could have taken place and mental illness is all the more reason to remove hime permanently from society. The bad thing is that this guy was housed fed and clothed for 19 years. He should have been executed years ago. As for Amnesty International's complaints I suggest that Japan ship all of their death row inmates to their offices preferrably armed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Too late to execute this b-stard. he didn't deserve to live so long after comitting this crime.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We should really reflect and look at the Justice Minister Hatoyama's record - 13 hanged in just over a year - seems like although there are 102 still left on death row. But is this deterring anyone from such heinous crimes? The recent Akihabara stabbings and similar crimes recently suggest that it is not a deterrent. And surely a life in the abhorrent conditions that prison can be is worse than an escape route from such a life through death - in a culture that does not have the hang-ups of the West regarding suicide. Food for thought.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

13 hanged in a year, makes hayotama (small h) a serial killer in my books

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For all the guys that say they would do horrible things to someone that hurt their family. Would your REALLY or are you just postering and talking tough? Or would you sink to the same level of the person that did the crime for the sake of REVENGE only to posibbly end up on deathrow yourself.

Also the Death Penalty so far gives little comfort or closure to the surviving family members. This view has been voiced by many families that watched the executions of murderers, etc.

As for keeping people alive how long have people been kept on death-row in other countries. Compare the cost of keeping a person on death-row for 10 yrs vs 10yrs in general population(it will be an eye-opener).

Death-Row they guys get one-person cels are kept from other prisoners to PROTECT them. There are more guards per prisoner than in general population.

Why because most of those guys wouldn't survive long in general population .

Do some research.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Serial child killer Tsutomu Miyazaki, 2 others executed

Finally, Japan has done something right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hang all the rest of them. within the the month. 10-20 a day will be fine. That would send a MESSAGE.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes Zen, I do believe I would. Don't you dare try to lower me to that level. If I were, I would torture him, kill him, rape the body, and then send pieces to his family. Then you could say we would be at the same level.

Drewblunt, execution is NOT MEANT AS A DETERRENT! It is meant for those individuals who have committed exceptionally heinous crime, and for whom there is no chance at rehabilitation. There was no chance this "man" would ever have been rehabbed. None. He never even thought twice about what he did, other than to replay it over and over again in his mind for his own pleasure. That's it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

rtrhead1

And how do you think your actions would be perceived? Would you be given a vigilante award and a pat on the back and let go free or do you think you would be prosecuted and tried as just another criminal?

But I sense a LOT of aggression in you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zen_Builder,

[Death-Row prisoners]. . . are kept from other prisoners to PROTECT them . . . Why? Because most of those guys wouldn't survive long in general population

Did you take the time to ask yourself why these kinds of killers wouldn't survive long in the general prison population? Had it ever occurred to you that even those with criminal minds draw a line somewhere, namely at the brutal murder of children? This simply speaks to the suggestion by some here that there are some cases for which the death penalty is entirely appropriate. Miyazaki is just such a case.

Drewblunt,

To reiterate rtrhead1's point, the death penalty is not a deterent. In cases like Miyazaki, who is morally corrupt to the the core to begin with, how could it be? The "deterence" argument is, as someone suggested, a frequent argument used by death penalty advocates. I for one, believe it does serve as a deterrent for those individuals who may be planning murder out of revenge or as an insurance scam, for example, but for cold-blooded killers who murder for sport? They are executed to remove them from society. That's it. Certainly, Miyazaki's execution will likely have no impact on the actions of the next serial killer. But make no mistake, neither will a life sentence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain.

Not saying I am disagreeing. But many justice systems pay up top 8xtimes the cost of keeping a guy alive on death-row(often for decades) vs a guy in general populace.

Said that is what is happening in general populace any better than sharia/ancient laws or the guys that would kill the guy themselves?

Don't get me wrong I have NO good feelings for Miyazaki, just don't feel that the death penalty is the right answer.

Yes, at the same time if we give into our feelings of hate and retribution/revenge are we better than them? Or are we superior?

IMO, a mentally disturbed version will do bad deeds no matter what BUT that is their mindset. But WHO gives us the moral high-ground to say they are lower than us and thus deserve death.

I asked this question multiple times here and so far I have been attacked personally and no one stepped up to answer it.

Are we any better than them for wishing a painful end to their lives, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But WHO gives us the moral high-ground to say they are lower than us and thus deserve death.

People do. That's the point here. Society and the rules that govern society aren't abstract, divine constructs existing solely at the behest of some higher power. It's a construct of people, like you and me, who meet on common terms and come to an agreement regarding how the indivudual is expected to conduct him or herself in order to partake in the benefits that an organized society offers. It's the Social Contract.

Violate this contract in a way that is so grossly dismissive of the social contract, as demostrated in, say, the murder of four young children - I can understand Japanese thinking when they say all bets are off. To become a monster is to divest oneself of society's protections, including the protection against loss of life.

When the vast majority of Japanese society (81.4% of Japanese support the death penalty. Opposed: 6%, according to a 2005 survey), that is the People - with a capital "P" - assuming their right and obligation to honor and protect the Social Contract. The People have the right and the People create the moral high ground.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yet, more and more countries abolish it and are against it and that also comes from the People(capital "P").

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And more and more countries are looking favorably upon the implementation of strict Sharia Law. More and more countries are looking to increase burning CO2 emitting-coal to generate electricity. More and more countries are demanding the right to possess nuclear technology. What's your point here exactly? Because everyone else is doing it, Japan should tow the line?

I don't say that I can't see the merits of banning executions, particularly with regard to the possibility that innocent people may be sentenced to such an irreversible fate. People are locked away mistakenly for rapes they never committed, but no one is clamoring to repeal prison irrevocable prison sentences for such despicable crimes. Thinks are never black or white. There are cases in which removing the problem from society permanently is the most viable solution acceptable to the People.

Since banishment is no longer an option (Australia's been taken), there are few other alternatives. Judging by the support capital punishment continues to receive in many nations, including some of the most heavily and densely populated nations in the world, life sentences clearly don't satisfy the public's needs - the need for security, the need for reaffirmation of basic social tenets, and the need for, yes, justice, all in cases of extreme brutality like Miyazaki's crimes.

In countries in which capital punishment is accepted, the people of those States have chosen to create and follow a different Social Contract. In Japan, the People overwhelmingly feel that a brutal, remorseless killer has no place in society whatsoever, including at the expense of taxpayers in perpetual imprisonment.

I ask you this: Who gives us the right to dictate to an entire nation how they carry out justice to satisfy the demands and needs of citizens of representative governments?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WHO is about talking anybody dictating anything.

You guys really start to read and rely to what is posted and stop taking things out of context to suit your own needs and agendas.

I am talking about trends and worldwide changes but some people are so opposed to anything that goes against their views that it is sad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You aren't really just "talking" about trends and worldwide changes. You are implying that Japan should follow in their footsteps. The questions that you pose go both ways. What gives us the right to execute? What also gives us the right to imprison for their natural life? Why should a killer like this guy be executed? Why shouldn't he be? Yes, I can understand your point. An innocent person may be sentanced to death, and until we become perfect, that chance will never be completely diminished. However, an innocent person may be sentanced to the rest of his natural life in prison, then he dies there from old age, and is later exonerated. Tell me the difference. Either way he is sentenced to death. However in this case, where guilt is proven, why should he be put in prison forever? The chance for escape will always be there. The chance for his rehab will always be zero.

And to touch on your statement about my agression, yes, I have lots of it when you talk about trash that would kill children, or anyone, and do to them what he did. Yes, I understand perfectly well what would happen to me after. And unlike some here, I would gladly pay that price. Would it bring the child back? No. But, it would ensure that the individual who did it would never do it to someone else's loved one, due to whatever reason. Mistrial, esceape, etc. I can also pretty much guarantee that the punishment in that case would not be capitol punishment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gentlepeople,

I have been enjoying your discussion. Very interesting. Just to let you know, I am against the death penalty. In an imperfect legal system, the death penalty should not be used. There are very few cases where there is absolute proof of guilt and in a system that relies on confessions, obtained by almost any means necessary, abuse can and does run rampant. Someone asked how the people who were against the death penalty would react if it was their children or loved ones who were killed, wouldn't they want vengeance. My question is: Would you support the death penalty if your child or loved one was the person who had a committed a vicious murder/murders? Or would you beg for their lives?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“You guys?” There's no one here but you and I. Don't try to validate your position by creating the illusion of being ganged up upon. It's just you and I.

Furthermore, are you suggesting I don't read widely enough? Awfully presumptuous of you. Or is it that even though I may read the same things you likely do, including a wide variety of reports from Amnesty International, I just don’t always agree with them (or you)?

Grow up a little. Deal with the fact that not everyone is going to be in your corner, regardless of what website they visit. Not everyone is going to subscribe to your particular brand of right versus wrong. That doesn’t make them wrong, or morally bankrupt, or bad. It just makes them different. You present the argument against capital punishment as universally accepted. I’m correcting you by explain that it is not. Deal with it.

“. . . .but some people are so opposed to anything that goes against their views that it is sad.”

Say this to yourself aloud a few times see if you can find the underlying absurdity of it. I’m opposed to the manufacture and implementation of cluster bombs. It goes against my views. Is my adamant refusal to endorse the use of cluster bombs therefore “sad”? Or are things only sad when they go against your viewpoints? How incredibly conceited.

Here’s a suggestion: Stick to the argument at hand. Stop the amateur psycho-analysis of other posters (To rtrhead1: “I sense a LOT of aggression in you.”) This isn’t about you. It isn’t about me. It isn’t about other posters. It’s about a nation’s right to self-determination. If Japan decides that the death penalty is an acceptable form of punishment (81% say “yea”), then that’s just the way is goes for now. Shaking your virtual head and being “sad” serves few other purposes than to highlight your inability to face differences of opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

keech, yes, I would support it. If they did it, why would I beg for their lives? Who begged for the lives of the ones they took? If someone that I knew and loved did something like Miyazaki did, and it was proven, and they were sentenced to death, of course it would devestate me. However, they did it. They get the punishment that is doled out. I am done debating this topic. I understand that some people don't believe in it for whatever reason. I do believe in it. Is our system perfect? No. However, we do the best we can given our situations. I would rather see a proven, convicted murderer and torturer given death, than taken care of in prison forever. And before anyone comes with that crap about how much it costs to execute someone, ask yourself this: Why does it cost so much? The actualy cost isn't much. It is someone lining their pockets. Thats it. A 10 ft piece of good rope costs what, $10? That's really all you need to execute. Forget injections, electric chairs, and gas. A short drop and a sudden stop for the worst of the worst.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

rtr, thank you for your response. I appreciate your answer. However, until the possibility that an innocent person would never be put death is removed and the system is fairly used, I will continue to be opposed to the death penalty. If you really are concerned about cost, a bullet to the back of the head is probably cheaper than the rope.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can also appreciate the concern for the possibility of an innocent person being put to death. However, as I said above, what about the innocent person that gets a life sentence and ends up dying in prison? The possiblity of an innocent being put to death or put in prison for life (which results in death) will NEVER be completely gone. Just can't happen. We are human, and there is no chance. We can only strive for perfection knowing that we will never attain it. And I am all for a bullet to the head. But in the end, the rope ends up being cheaper. You know, reduce, reuse, recycle?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is no question of innocence in this case. I am glad that the parents of the girls now have closure and don`t have to live with the thought that this cretin will be relaesed into the population again one day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My question is: Would you support the death penalty if your child or loved one was the person who had a committed a vicious murder/murders? Or would you beg for their lives?

I would beg for their lives. I realise the flaws of capital punishment, and am glad to have been born in a country in which it has been abolished. That being said, I can't help but think that some criminals violate their right to live. I finish with a quote from the movie 'The Boondock Saints' available in Japan under the title 「処刑人」

CONNOR Weird, huh?... Know what I think is weird? Decent men with loving families go home every day after work. They turn on the news and see rapists, murderers, and child molesters all getting out of prison... Little girls catchin' stray bullets in their heads, playin' hopscotch in their front yards. And everyone thinks the same thing...Someone should just go kill those motherf%#@$

I don't support vigilantism, as that can be as flawed as the legal system, but sometimes they draw one's empathy, and that of society as a whole.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This man was very sick, mentally sick. A state that kills sick people is sick.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

very sick? yeah he was very sick - evil sick, but the man was not insane, he knew what he was doing, he enjoyed it and never showed remorse. He had a Dissociative identity disorder - think Gollum/Smeagol from Lord of the Rings. Both Gollum and Miyazaki knew exactly what the were doing and thats why the judge never bought into Miyazaki insanity plea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This man was very sick, mentally sick. A state that kills sick people is >sick.

Actually, thats something I've never understood. Why should it matter if the guy is nuts or not? If he does the crime, then crazy or not, he should pay for it. Its not about punishment, but rather about justice. Not only for the victims, but for those left behind, and society as well.

As you can probably tell, I'm strongly in favor of the death penalty. The minuscule possibility that someone may be wrongfully sentenced to death is heavily outweighed by the needs of Justice. And between killing a person by hanging, or killing a person by having them rot in a cell for 50 years, I prefer the rope. Its a lot cheaper, and provides better closure for the family and friends. And gives no chance that they'll ever get out and kill someone else.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"fast pace of executions"?

it took nearly two decades (and million$$$ of taxpayer money) to off these guys. one of them almost died of old age!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

PrinceskaNo1

This man was very sick, mentally sick. A state that kills sick people is sick.

Even if he is sick he has no right to live a single moment. he is danger to society and should be executed to save many lives. And whoever oppose his death sentence they should take him to their homes and keep him safe with lots of love.

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