Japan hangs 2 inmates, including one seeking retrial


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


©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Could you even think if one of them actually were innocent! What if it was you who had been falsely accused and hanged for a murder?

14 ( +20 / -6 )

Why do they still use hanging? To me it just seems sadistic.

7 ( +14 / -7 )

precious lives of the victims were taken for selfish purposes

How could a murder ever be anything other than 'selfish'? Strange choice of word.

As Justice Minister in a country that still has the death penalty, one could argue that it's his duty to carry them out. With luck though the decision will be taken out of the minister's hands and Japan will enter the modern world by abolishing capital punishment.

14 ( +18 / -4 )

Could you even think if one of them actually were innocent! What if it was you who had been falsely accused and hanged for a murder?

Sumida withdrew an appeal and accepted a court ruling himself. Nishikawa was appealing for retrials claiming execution was a sentence too harsh for murdering 4 women which is beyond my comprehension.

13 ( +16 / -3 )

I'd hope they might change the method of execution sometime soon. Hanging is ridiculous

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Kasper123, that is why the death sentance is always wrong. All human systems, no matter how well intentioned are fallable, mistakes are and always will be made. On a lesser sentence where an error has been made, restitution can be attempted but shouting "sorry" at the grave of an innocent man is fairly ineffectual!

8 ( +11 / -3 )

There is no such thing as humane slaughter. If you support capital punishment, why complain about how it's done? Hanging is the cheapest way - a lot cheaper than keeping prisoners in prison for life - which is what people in support of the death penalty invariably complain about: "Why should my taxes go to keeping this person alive?" they say.

Well, that's two more saving you money.

I am very much against the death penalty. It achieves nothing good whatsoever.

8 ( +14 / -6 )

Nishikawa was being impertinent wanting an appeal after murdering four women, especially on the grounds that the sentence was excessive! No, he deserved his fate, and such should be the fate of all deliberate or wanton murdered.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Kill them now as its a way to stop more killers, yep that works? At least if they are dead they can't complain or be involved in proving their innocence.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

They don't have an appeal process? The guy was convicted in 1991 and just now sentenced to death? They are not allowed to have a retrial? How are death row inmates treated in Japan, do they have last rights? I do believe people should be punished for the serious crimes that they commit, but hanging people, staging mock hanging trials and mentally torturing them? Given the history of forced confessions trumped up evidence or lack of it, I seriously wonder how many innocent people have died under this system.

I think it's high time to abolish hanging in this country.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

I think it's high time to abolish hanging in this country.

"high time" Yes, indeed. It sounds like a rough way to go.

But the death penalty has got to be reserved for convictions with irrefutable evidence.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

But the death penalty has got to be reserved for convictions with irrefutable evidence.

Well unfortunately horrific murders happen every day, along with solid convictions. In the US at least whether the government decides whether you live or die largely depends on extraneous factors like race and social status of the perpetrator and victim.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

State sanctioned killing. No different to the murderers they hang.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

I love it how the first concern certain individuals have for criminals that have murdered four bar managers or the cruel murder of a couple of two women is that "hanging is too sadistic".

I mean, remember the old say, "First time you kill a bar manager is an accident, the second time it is a mistake, but the third time is a habit".

Four times is just taking the ****.

Put it to a vote and you might find most think it is not sadistic enough!

There is a science behind hanging that has involved a long history of vivisection, e.g. the British did extensive studies on Nazi war criminals after WWII, so it can be pretty accurate. They don't just string them to a tree.

What techique does Japan use, long or short drop?

Funnily enough, the original concept of the design of the French guillotine was to make death as sure and as compassion as possible. Nothing more sure than separating one's head from one's body in a second.

Put me down for a yes on capital punishment and a yes for allow Japanese society to decide on its own requirements. Never understodd why the likes of Amnest International made a big fuss about it, nor why society should be lumbered with the costs of keeping such individuals alive for the rest of their rotten murderous lives.

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

20+ yrs on death row is inhuman, harsh and cruel.

Life in prison would be cheaper these days.

Death sentences were cheaper in the far past.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Countries that no longer have Captial Punishment as a deterrent , no longer have a real means to discourage Captial Crimes such as homicides, kidnappings, piracy, skyjacking and etc. With the introduction of forensic procedures and DNA testing the percentage of erroneous conviction rates have reached the zero percentage rate. Penal institution's and waste federal funding to keep those convicted of such crimes institutionalized awaiting trial review need not extend beyond the local state's/ prefecture before senses are carried out.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

" Hang 'em HIGH ". Good work.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Those who kill others cannot demand mercy and they have no right to live their own life. No man create a life and no man kill a life. That is why concept of vegetarianism propagated by great master like Buddha and Hindu sages and saints. The people should be treated like as they in Arab countries. That is why , crime rates are less in those countries. Many come out of their countries and kill, loot and destroy. No democracy can function, if law of justice is not fast and speed.

The rule of law can be mixed with mercy only if convicts regret for life. Only strong punishments and strict government can keep our society safe and crime free

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

What so many of these poor sad minds who defend 'execution' are incapable of seeing is that killing a Human Being under any circumstances is Murder. When the State, who are ostensibly The People, murders, we all become as guilty as the original perpetrator. We all are made into murderers. Something so simple may be 'too deep' for many who, sadly, inhabit the first standard deviation and below of their respective group intelligence distributions but is just the State (the dominant clique) justifying its 'right' to murder anyone, anywhere, which it considers an 'enemy' of itself to those mindless, nonthinking folks so that they understand subconsciously that disobedience is death. The individual who murders is, by definition, mentally ill. If impulsively, certainly mental illness. If premeditatively, mentally ill by psychopathy. This is what we see in State murder because any dominating clique in any Human group ever and anywhere is composed of the most 'talented' psychopaths which that group can produce and execution is just one of their many historical tools for ensuring dominance and obedience from their herds.

7 ( +13 / -6 )

Even hanging was condemned and outlawed as an international execution method after the Nuremberg Trials following the end of WWII in Europe. This move came after it took a maximum of 15 minutes for one of them to suffocate! Just introduce life-sentence and let them rot in prison, stripped from their liberty forever. At least it's more humane, and they'll get all the time to atone for their crimes instead of ending their lives simply by hanging!

9 ( +10 / -1 )

In USA, no one is hang.  They dies peacefully.  12 o'clock midnight, the death procedure begins.  poisonmixed liquid filled syringe is used like medicine shot and they die.   Some state. does not perform and ask. Nearby state to perform because many officers decline saying they don't likee killing anothebprson.  no hanging in USA

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

I am against the DP, if hanging is done correctly it will break the Neck instantly, short drop and they will suffocate.

Life Sentence would mean General Population vs Death Row(Solitary confinement, no contact with other prisoners, more guards per prisoners, more privileges, cost 6-10 times/year, etc).

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@William Bjornson

What so many of these poor sad minds who defend 'execution' are incapable of seeing is that killing a Human Being under any circumstances is Murder.

As you layered your posts with insults that apply to me, I'd like to state that is clearly just not true. Basically all legal systems since The Code of Hammurabi have defined differences according to purpose, context and intent.

For example, drivers used motorcars to kill innocent children or cyclists every day, are they murders?

I'd actually say they were and should be treated as such, it might make people more attentive on the road if they knew killing a kid would lead to the death penality or life imprisonment. Are you going to turn around and say, "oh no, that's not murder, that's manslaughter"? How about cigarette companies selling sticks of death?

So who has to pay to keep the murders locked away safely for life?

I have a fairly liberal set of politics, I have no objection to a group of individuals taking on the expense of keep prisons safely locked up for life ... but will your own form of moral dictatorship allow the rest of us in favor of capital punishment to opt out?

One way to resolve the issue might be to pass the cost of internment onto the offender's nearest family, thereby bringing family pressures to bear on members. This was pretty much the method in "old Asia" and still goes on, to some degree, in India and China etc, e.g. you go to prison, your family has to feed you, or you die.

But is that fair on the family members who might have been the first victims?

But why should the rest of us pay for your "extreme liberal" indulgences?

I'd rather give my money to repairing and rebuilding the victims.

At the end of the day, it is a sort of eugenic streaming. Fair enough, you say it's an illness, say it has genetic roots, should humanity keep those genes around and in circulation?

Therefore, it would seem the rest of us would be best served by killing off, say, the top 1% and the bottom 10% ... but look at what happened the last times we tried that approach!

At the very least, it should be a quick and voluntary option offered to all criminals.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

I'm actually astonished to learn Japan still has the death penalty! Or perhaps I'm not. maybe now I understand why the Japanese are all too scared to express themselves and prefer to throw themselves under a speeding train rather than stand up for their rights?

And before I am accused of defending nasty people who deserve everything they have coming to them just check history. There have been so many people wrongly convicted, and indeed framed by governments, but hanged. Will you be the next one?

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Strong pressure to abolish the DP in Japan.

The EU abolished it, required for new members like Turkey to join.

As for it being a deterrent, no increase was noticed in the EU.

9 ( +11 / -2 )


So what's you position with proven, confessed, DNA supported offenses? What's the rationale at having to pay to keep them alive for 20 or 30 years?

Actually, "most Japanese" are too scared to throw themselves under a speeding train because their family's most certainly will be charged damages for shutting the network down ... I think it is up to ¥3m (or $34,000) for one "death by shinkansen". It worked as a deterrent.

And what has murdering 4 employees got with "standing up for one's rights"?

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

Countries that no longer have Captial Punishment as a deterrent , no longer have a real means to discourage Captial Crimes such as homicides, kidnappings, piracy, skyjacking and etc.

Then why has support for the death penalty in the US has been falling for more than 20 years to levels not seen since the early '70's ? In short because it tracks very strongly with the rate of violent crime, which has also been falling since the mid 1990's.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

One of the main problems with the death penalty is: where do you draw the line? However you end up separating the "heinous" from "really bad" you will have an ethical dilemma: why does this person have to die while this other person gets to live?

I think the Japanese Bar Association knows that it is ethically clearer to just take capital punishment off the table.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

I'm against the death penalty in general, but also in Japan one has to keep in mind the methods used by the Japanese Police to extract confessions. They can hardly be called reliable, which could lead to countless innocent people being executed.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

It is barbaric custom. In feudal era in Japan.   Supposed to be ended after Gen,,,, To Jo etc were hang.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Debate on the pros and cons aside, I've heard that in Japan the prisoner on death row doesn't know his time is up until the morning of the hanging. Waking up each day wondering if this is your last must be a quiet and ever pervading punishment within itself. Wonder if many of them start actually hoping for it to be over.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

We can save money by getting rid of most if not all prisons. Literal eye for an eye punishment. You kill someone, you are put to death; you rpe someone, you are rped; you steal something, something shall be stolen from you; you kidnap someone and hide them in a basement for 5 years, you are kept in a basement for 5 years; etc. Of course, if convicted, the victim or immediate family can forgive or ask judge to instead impose community service at the victim's or family's discretion. Even in the old "eye for an eye" punishment it was more like "eye for a slight" (ie a thief was killed rather than fined or having something stolen from them, rpists killed rather than rped).

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Meant that the old "eye for an eye" was not proportional. I wrote slight for the first example and not the second at the end. Apologies to all. Please include edit button.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If you kill other innocent human beings who haven't tried to harm or kill you then, yes, you should be killed too if proven guilty.

Japan has it right with the death penalty.

They do need to get it right with how they obtain and present evidence so as to not convict the wrong person though.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )


I'd hope they might change the method of execution sometime soon. Hanging is ridiculous

What is your alternative? what is the less ridiculous method to kill a human being?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )


What is your alternative? what is the less ridiculous method to kill a human being?

Personally I am against the death penalty, however it doesn't look like it'll be abolished anytime soon here so I would say lethal injection would be the better alternative. The Pharma companies here wouldn't present the same problems in acquiring the necessary chemicals as they do in the US either

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Is Japan going to hang Chisako Kakehi, she is a female murderer who killed 4 men at least!  Hanging female inmate might causing international uproar especially from US or EU,Canada,Australia.....etc Those were Japan's ally.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )


What is your alternative? what is the less ridiculous method to kill a human being?

Of course, Japan used to have a perfectly one but it got a bit of bad press. Single stroke by a skilled swordsman, which is pretty much what the guillotine mechanized. So quick, you would not feel it, and I base that on the experience of a swordsman in Kyoto who accidentally ran his own blade through his own arm. He described it as like a hot knife through butter. (It did hurt afterwards though!). You can measure the speed versus the speed of nerves.

Chemicals just are not 100% reliable in the same way that a guillotine is. Same too with hanging, or the electric chair.

You would not need to use gravity these days either. You could electro-magnetics or hydraulics. Could be as surgical as an MRI scanner.

The next argument that generally comes up is, "Well, who is going to do it?". I think people would be surprised how many would volunteer to. See in the US were lay "witness" get the equivalent of season tickets and go on days out to the local terminations.

What is the real motivating factor behind Amnest International telling other nations how to live, how to deal with its social problems, and how to spend its money now?

Obviously, part of it has become putting on show, performing for its donors. Part of it an middle class status thing, e.g. "being seen to the be the force for moral good".

But underneath that, is it a Christian thing, "salvation" for all still being possible?

Try an experiment in true democracy and poll for the popular support for capital punishment for;

a) child sex abuses, and

b) rape.

I think that's where I'd draw my line to include. Who is going to defend them? Those are two areas of abuse of power that need to tightened up. At the very, very least, depending on severity, "3 times and you are out". Either with violence, one stroke.

Murder? No question (self defence etc excluded). Manslaughter laws are pretty much fine as they are, but I think the responsibility for death by automobile should be much higher, say somewhere at the high end of manslaughter/crossing over to murder is cases of serious negligence.

In Japan there's a lot more support for capital punishment than Amnesty Interntional, who are just seen on a par with Sea Shepherd over this issue.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )


Actually, it took the UK until 1964 to stop, the lasting being two criminals who bludgeoned a man to death to steal £10 (1,500 Yen).

And it actually longer to hang some the Nazis which they used as scientific level study cases to refine and improve their technique.

The British had it down to a fine art. Albert Pierrepoint specifically tailored the drop to each persons’ height and weight resulting in an almost instantaneous death, unlike the American's John C. Woods’ who used the standard US Army "standard drop" that took ten to twenty minutes to slowly and painfully suffocate victims to death.

Of course, the US still kills. It is thought that Woods was doing it deliberately. The hangings took so long that that had to take smoke breaks (the hangmen that is, not the victims).

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Japan has it right with the death penalty.

They do need to get it right with how they obtain and present evidence so as to not convict the wrong person though.

So Japan should carry on executing people even though the way they currently obtain and present evidence is flawed?

Sounds like a bit of a gamble to me.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It works both ways, because of the risk adversion, lose of face etc, there's a tendeny only to take on cases that are more sure.

Bear in mind Japan that incarcerates individuals 13 times less often than the USA, and has 1/5th of the rate or murders.

Therefore, even if it was making as many mistakes as the US "justice" system, which I doubt, it would still be making 5 to 13 times less mistakes.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

What's the difference between murder and a democratic government-style sanctioned execution?

A trial by one's peers who look at the evidence provided in a court of law, and determine that the evidence provides reasonable doubt of innocence.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

While I disagree with the death penalty in principle, hanging seems to be instant, simple and painless.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The death penalty is barbaric. One would expect such savagery in so-called IS but in Japan?

the British did extensive studies on Nazi war criminals after WWII, so it can be pretty accurate. They don't just string them to a tree.

Mind you, the British used concentration camps on the Boers. Thousands of women and children perished in them.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Sorry, I made a mistake based on a set of statistics that only registered Japan to the nearest single figure. Japan's homocide rate is 0.3 per 100,000.

The US's rate is 4.9 per 100,000

Therefore 16 times less. Gun murders in Japan are literally down to single figures per year against about 10,000, or 30 a day. But, hey, Americans need their guns in case King George invades them!

Toasted, how can you equate historical events of dead people with current events involving living individuals?

To an extent we are discussing, "is there a collective responsibility and come back from a society carrying out executions?", but how can that responsibility be passed on to individuals who were not alive at the time?

From the evidence of professional executioners, it does not seem to deeply effect them. Certainly less so than a soldier or, from anecdotal evidence, someone carrying a murder out of anger or negligence.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Toasted, how can you equate historical events of dead people with current events involving living individuals?

I was replying to the quote about British studies on nazi war criminals.

Murder is murder, whether it's committed by individuals or the state. Your contempt for Amnesty and human rights isn't going to change that.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

This is interesting and adds some more insights.

A Secret Theater: Inside Japan's Capital Punishment System by Charles Lane

United States-Japan Foundation Media Fellows Program

If you ask someone who has been there to describe the death chamber in Japan, he might well say it is a surprisingly attractive place. A former prosecutor told me the room in the Nagoya Detention Center where convicted murderers are hanged is a spare, tastefully lighted space with a polished floor of Japanese cypress. "Like a noh theater," he said. During executions, a sound system pipes in the calming tones of a Buddhist sutra. An ex-member of the Diet who visited the Tokyo Detention Center's gallows told me he was struck by the reddish-purple floor covering--"like the carpet you see in the function rooms of a hotel," as he put it. A fellow visitor murmured to him: "It's nicer than I thought."

It would seem the photo above is from the room below.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

It's called a primary source. They are widely acceptable in academia, and useful for counter prejudicial biases based on personal projection and wishfulfilment.

Here's a reliable secondary source tht supports their view, from The Economist:

Current and former Amnesty insiders worry that an increasingly grandstanding and unfocused approach makes it ineffective.

"Grandstanding" means, to seek to attract applause or favorable attention from spectators or the media.

I would argue that the case of Japan's extremely minimal capital punishment is just that. Profiting out of a moral outrage based on Japan Hate.

Or do you prefer the imaginary PR version of Amnesty International?

Their other criticism was an extension of that, that campaigns were chosen (and rejected) on the basis of how much money they would bring in.

Again, from The Economist;

Amnesty has to compete for attention and funds with other human-rights organisations ... its expert researchers and analysts still continue in their work, but sometimes feel let down by what the leadership chooses to showcase.

So there you go, primary source backed up by secondary source. What more do you need?

Let's do a cost-benefit analysis on this case. How much does it cost, how much do they make of it, how much of an effect will it have, what are the pros and cons of it.

Are you and Amnesty International offering to pay for life imprisonment or take them overseas?

If no, why should Japanese people support them?

What benefit for anyone is there is keeping a multiple murder in a nice, warm hotel and fed for life?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )


Straight up questions for those who oppose it, who should pay for life incarcerations and why?

If the opposition is based on, "but what about the innocent person who might die?"

Well, what about the 5,000 (approx) innocent people who die by car accidents? (US 37,000).

Or, an interesting reflection on Japanese soceity, the 14,000 who die in a bathtub.

As a society we make decisions about the acceptability of activities involving far greater levels of fatality risks based on their benefits to the lucky who do not get caught, from what we stick in our mouths, to what "fun" we have or sports we play.

If it is about "saving innocent lives", then start with cars, cigarettes, junk food ... and bathtubs.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Are you and Amnesty International offering to pay for life imprisonment or take them overseas?

Are you offering to execute them?

I think that's as relevant as your question.

I would argue that the case of Japan's extremely minimal capital punishment is just that. Profiting out of a moral outrage based on Japan Hate.

LOL. To be opposed to the death penalty is to be anti-Japanese?

How does that work, exactly?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

A Buddhist which you have claimed to be, which I have been for five decades and more, a true a practicing Buddhist, would be opposed to all forms of capital punishment and not discussing the various methods of executions or the need of execution being cheaper than life in prison, which as been proved incorrect.

Couldn't have put it better myself, Zichi.

I fail to see how Buddhism and support for the death penalty can co-exist. It really doesn't tally.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

What is sacred (sanctity) about a murder's life? What makes a human mammal's life "sacred" but a non-human mammal's life not sacred? Whether it is tasty or not?

I met a Catholic once. They asked me, "Which is worse, suicide of murder?". I answered, of course, "murder" because it was killing someone else. Generally "an innocent". If you want to kill yourself, then that is your business, just take care not to hurt anyone else if you do.

They told me, "no, suicide is worse because at least a murderer can repent and be saved for eternity by Jesus".

I thought that was demented but if it is a foundation belief of Christianity, went a long way to explain the genocide of Asians and Native Americans they carried out. ("Genocide is OK, especially if you do it for the Church. Just repent and be saved afterwards!" How convenient).

@Zichi (and Toasted)

Look, I know you are just out to discredit me personally because I challenged your habitual anti-Japan stance but I am not a Buddhist. I made an example regarding the use of swastikas in the discussion of the Western moral dictatorship of Japan and Asia.

You are also wrong about capital punishment and Buddhism. There is no unified policy on capital punishment within Buddhism. And you'd have to start such a discussion with which school of Buddhism and at what level of Buddhism

Traditionally there are two forms of capital punishment described in Buddhism;

quick (suddhavadha) which usually meant beheading as traditionally practised in Japan, and

painful (klesadaõóa) that included torture before death.

Actually, for 350 years it was abolished in Japan during the reign of the Emperor Shomu, a devote Buddhist (724-49) and again 810 - longer than the entire history of the USA (and let's forget the Judeo-Christian god's attitude towards murder and genocide) - but changing conditions, as understood within Buddhist (decline of dharma), led it to be found unsuccessful.

As with many difficult issues, the Buddha avoided explicitly speaking about capital punishment. He was not in favor of hard and fast rules as in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )


In the old days, they used banishment as a punishment - as recommended by Buddhist scriptures and tradition - which, to be frank, was pretty much capital punishing as it would certainly lead to death sooner or later. The only difference being, no human had to do it with their own hands which was obviously better for them.

However, it became problematic because, a) they did not just all die quickly and turned into murderous criminal bands in order to survive, and b) we have run out of areas (like Australia) to banish people to.

So, the issue really comes down to a question of the management of available resources, i.e. costs.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Just a quick opinion for those who feel hanging is particularly cruel.  Lethal injection may arguably be the least cruel, but historic ways of killing that include bullet to the head and gas and beheading, are clearly much more traumatic.  So, a body falls a fair distance, then the spinal cord (neck) and all the nerves are instantly severed, leaving the brain in an intact and painless state...last thoughts anyone.  We are not talking about pulling someone up slowly to cause choking and asphyxiation. Well, maybe beheading is the best, but it is damn messy...

0 ( +0 / -0 )


140 countries no longer have a death penalty.

... And 114 countries have a higher murder rate statistic than Japan.

Looking at the list below Japan, many of them are still involved in extrajudicial murders and far worse. They are in a tribal state where no statistics are kept, with traditions of honor killings and so on. I suspect Japan's is still lower again.

(In general, the Americas have a 6 times higher rate than Asia, so who can teach who how to run a society?).

What you did is called an 'argumentum ad populum' or an appeal to the majority. In short, "if many believe so, it is so."

It is a fallacious, therefore false, logic.

So what, most people are deluded, plain wrong, irrational, over-sentimental, corruptly self-interested and so on.

... And that is what Buddhism also says.

I told you above, I am not a Buddhist. In the discussion about "politically correct dictators", of which this is an extension, I used the example of Buddhists, Jains and Hindus thinking swastikas were a positive thing where others make a living out of telling people not to use them. Indeed, there is/was pressure on Japan not to do so, even for the Olympics, in case it might "offend" someone?

Perhaps those someone's need a thicker skin and a broader mind.

The problem is ... the likes of Amnesty International and prison reform arose in and for countries where there were problems. Forensic evidence and DNA had not been developed. Dictatorship was common place. Innocent individuals died.

As someone else wrote about, forensic evidence and DNA has caught up and overtaken the moral problem, therefore we have to review 19th Century Christian based ideologies.

Might I also suggest that many Western countries has much to learn from the Japanese prison system.


Hangings are terribly messy, which is why they don't have carpet in the room below. Everything comes out. You don't want me to go into details.

You could easily make a push button, hi-tech, self-washing guillotine even build one into a cremator.

If you saw how Japan deals with destroy stray dogs, you would understand how it can approach such problems.

I am against destroy stray dogs but fine with the idea of destroying murders (without good reason), rapists and child sex abusers.

You, presumably, want to pay to support them for life, and think that all they need is some love?

I think we can be pretty sure losing your head does not stop you going to heaven because what happens then to those who lose them in a car or industrial accident? Religion is 98% pre-rational, countra-scientific nonsense, Buddhism included. They are all just popular control mechanism.

A false or hypocritical "Liberalism" has replaced Christianity in the West and is being imposed by outfits like Amnesty International on the rest of the world;

"Accept our values or we will bomb you or damage your economy until you do".

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I see nothing wrong with the execution of someone who has shown they have an inability to live within the confines of our societal structure to the point that if we were to let them live they would need to be incarcerated until their death. Some people through their actions forfeit their right to be allowed to live.

I do have a problem with the execution of wrongly convicted innocents however.

And since guilt is decided by humans, and we humans are inherently fallible in our decision making process at times, the death penalty should be abolished.

It has nothing to do with the morality of the death penalty (I don't see anything morally wrong with it), but it has everything to do with the morality of being willing to potentially execute a wrongly convicted innocent just so that we can execute the rightly convicted guilty.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites