Voices
in
Japan

have your say

What's your stance on the death penalty?

32 Comments

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

32 Comments
Login to comment

That it be determined as a ballot measure, through initiative or referrendum, for a vote of the people. Because I earnestly believe that the people are well capable of understanding the many issues that the penalty presents, and equally up to the important task of making a wise choice, when presented with the evidence.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I know the arguments for it but it’s state sponsored murder and I’m opposed to it.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

I think for 95% of offenders life in prison is 10x worse. Maybe give them life with the option of an early exit and see who takes it.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

No state can be considered peaceful if it relies of violence to uphold peace.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Unfortunately political interests can make a remain from a time where humanity was less developed persist.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It's also worth noting that Japan's no notification executions and reliance on hanging is extra barbaric.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

It 100% prevents re-offending of those executed.

The argument that "What if we convict the wrong person?" could also be made about sticking someone in jail for their whole life.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Acceptable for some crimes.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

It's a necessary setting of a high price to pay if someone is considering killings of many (here usually above one) lives. Such applied, it's of course not preventing all mass murder, but it surely potentially prevents completely or limits to one victim quite some of them. A comparison of crime statistics with countries where's no more death penalty shows obviously a certain success. For example, most US and EU states have abolished death penalty, but now have the burden of more killings and following much higher crime rates in general, because the criminals now psychologically have to fear just nothing. They are even pampered by society a lot of years more, if ever landing in jail or getting even away with their crimes, inadequately answered by gentle justice , sometimes even giving a not outspoken but in fact advantageous invitation for committing crimes or even murder as an easy 'problem solving'. If there is any problem with death penalty, then it is consisting of the two possible extremes, too much applied like for example in China, Saudi Arabia or a complete lacking of death penalty like in Europe.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

but it surely potentially prevents completely or limits to one victim quite some of them.

And potentially does the opposite as evidenced by the people that engage in multiple killings saying that they wanted to guarantee getting the death penalty.

A comparison of crime statistics with countries where's no more death penalty shows obviously a certain success

No, that is not correct.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/act500062008en.pdf

the average murder rate for states that used the death penalty was 5.71 per 100,000 of the population as against 4.02 per 100,000 in states that did not use it. In 2003 in Canada, 27 years after the country abolished the death penalty the murder rate had fallen by 44 per cent since 1975, when capital punishment was still enforced.

They are even pampered by society a lot of years more, if ever landing in jail or getting even away with their crimes,

If the justice system is problematic that is an argument against the death penalty not for it, a system that fails and have problems means death penalty can be misused.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Mr KiplingToday 10:10 am JST

It 100% prevents re-offending of those executed.

The argument that "What if we convict the wrong person?" could also be made about sticking someone in jail for their whole life.

Nonsense. You have the rest of that persons life to get the justice right.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Sven AsaiToday 10:41 am JST

They are even pampered by society a lot of years more, if ever landing in jail or getting even away with their crimes, inadequately answered by gentle justice , sometimes even giving a not outspoken but in fact advantageous invitation for committing crimes or even murder as an easy 'problem solving'.

What makes you think murder is encouraged in the US or EU? Life in prison is pretty darn horrible. There is no internet there, for example.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Two wrongs don't make a right

6 ( +8 / -2 )

A necessary evil.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Opposed the death penalty for 50 years. The majority of countries have abolished it.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Sometimes you just have to hang’em high.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

An unnecessary evil. The state, any state, should not be in the business of murdering their civilians.

As a Brit, I remember some of the miscarriages of justice - Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, Bridgewater Four, Stefan Kiszko - to name but a few who would have been executed had the UK had the death penalty. And two - Timothy Evans and Derek Bentley - who were wrongly convicted and executed for crimes they didn’t commit.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Repeal it. Far too many people have been wrongly convicted down the years, and it also doesn't serve as a deterrent: bad people will always do bad things.

Yes, it costs more to keep someone in prison for life. But I'd rather that than the possibility of innocent people being executed.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I would like to say this to those who want the death penalty to be abolished.

If someone kills my family, please give me the right to kill that person. Then you can support abolishing the death penalty.

The death penalty system has the aspect of revenge by the state on behalf of the victim, and is also a means of stopping the chain of revenge. Every time a Japanese person is killed by a Chinese, Russian, or Korean, is it okay to kill those people indiscriminately for revenge?

The crime rate in Japan, which has introduced the death penalty, is clearly lower than in the United States and other Western countries. In South Korea, women's assault rates are among the highest in the OECD, but murder rates are not that high. In America, it's basically state by state, so it's hard to say. The situation is different from Japan and South Korea because there are a lot of immigrants.

It is true that the EU has abolished the death penalty, but more and more criminals are being shot to death in the field. More people are shot to death by police in the EU than are executed in Japan. Even if they are criminals, they have the right to a trial, and it is hard to say that the EU is right in shooting people indiscriminately.What do you think?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Agent_NeoDec. 10 09:07 pm JST

We don't live in "eye for eye" times. That led to some pretty awful outcomes that cannot be reversed. Incarceration is supposed to be for corrective purposes or for public safety.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I'm for it solely because there are some who have committed crimes so heinous and despicable that it's an absolute insult that they should live out the rest of their days with a roof over their head and 3 square meals a day. I dabble in the true crime genre; there are cases documented that will leave a stain no matter how hard you scrub. Those...beings that committed those crimes don't deserve jail time or a quick "humane" death if I'm too be brutally honest.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

purple_depressed_baconToday 02:51 am JST

I'm for it solely because there are some who have committed crimes so heinous and despicable that it's an absolute insult that they should live out the rest of their days with a roof over their head and 3 square meals a day.

How satisfied would you be with no internet, a poor selection of literature, and no choice in your food or companionship for the rest of your life?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I believe that the modern death penalty system exists in order to prevent "an eye for an eye" and "death for death." To stop the chain of revenge.

If it were to be abolished, unless there was a reason that would convince a certain number of people like me who want "an eye for an eye," I would absolutely not be in favor of abolishing it.

I'm tired of people who only advocate for the rights of perpetrators.

I have already said that I would agree if it allowed personal vendettas.

There is no point in abolishing the death penalty if the reason for opposing it is that it is not in keeping with the times or that it would lead to tragic consequences.

This is because the state will not provide relief to the victims.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

It should be abolished. Individuals can be falsely convicted. It is not an deterrent. And when in prison, a person no longer represents a risk to the public. So it is nothing but cold blooded murder.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Agent_NeoToday 10:32 am JST

I believe that the modern death penalty system exists in order to prevent "an eye for an eye" and "death for death." To stop the chain of revenge.

It's stopped by forcing you to move on as the victim. Your perpetrator ain't having such a grand time in prison, as I outlined.

If it were to be abolished, unless there was a reason that would convince a certain number of people like me who want "an eye for an eye," I would absolutely not be in favor of abolishing it.

We have a civilization so don't have to go around as tribes massacring each other.

I'm tired of people who only advocate for the rights of perpetrators.

Well, they do have rights, namely to avoid cruel and unusual punishment and a timely trial.

I have already said that I would agree if it allowed personal vendettas.

There is no point in abolishing the death penalty if the reason for opposing it is that it is not in keeping with the times or that it would lead to tragic consequences.

Revenge doesn't provide real relief. And how are personal vendettas legal? Solve your issues through civil court or let it go.

There is no point in abolishing the death penalty if the reason for opposing it is that it is not in keeping with the times or that it would lead to tragic consequences.

Huh? We have more resources and the ability to be compassionate than a tribe of 100 people. Absolutely it makes sense to give the maximum opportunity for miscarriages of justice to be corrected, i.e. by letting the person live at least.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

How satisfied would you be with no internet, a poor selection of literature, and no choice in your food or companionship for the rest of your life?

I don't believe that the criminals who committed atrocious crimes should get any of those basic luxuries when they've deprived their victims of all those things and more. The fact that if they get life and do have access to such amenities and possibly more is galling and an insult to the victims and their families. Why should they live out the rest of their lives in basic comfort when they sent their victims to their graves in a haze of pain torture, agony, and violent brutality? Where's the justice in that?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If someone kills my family, please give me the right to kill that person. Then you can support abolishing the death penalty.

Putting your personal desires as a higher priority than the progress of humanity in general is not a productive attitude,

The death penalty system has the aspect of revenge by the state on behalf of the victim, and is also a means of stopping the chain of revenge

One, revenge is not a positive thing to support, and killing a person is not a means to stopping the chain, after all the executed person can also have family and friends that according to you would be justified in taking revenge, which of course makes no sense.

The crime rate in Japan, which has introduced the death penalty, is clearly lower than in the United States and other Western countries

The crime in Canada for example is much lower now than before the death penalty was abolished. This clearly contradicts your argument. Part of the development of society comes from society acting at a higher ethical level than the criminals, not reducing itself to the same lows.

It is true that the EU has abolished the death penalty, but more and more criminals are being shot to death in the field.

That is not an argument in support of the death penalty, violence as the last resort is still congruent with avoiding it as much as possible. That includes the death penalty, it is never the default way to deal with criminals but the exception if no other approach is possible.

Even if they are criminals, they have the right to a trial, and it is hard to say that the EU is right in shooting people indiscriminately.

What evidence do you have that people are being shot by law enforcement indiscriminately in the EU?

If it were to be abolished, unless there was a reason that would convince a certain number of people like me who want "an eye for an eye," I would absolutely not be in favor of abolishing it.

So if the family of the criminal executed is not convinced either, do you think they have the right to seek revenge themselves? they can also believe in "an eye for an eye" which according to your argument would justify for them to kill someone of the family of the first victim, ad infinitum.

I believe that the modern death penalty system exists in order to prevent "an eye for an eye" and "death for death." To stop the chain of revenge.

Life imprisonment would have the same effect and it is much more easier to justify ethically.

I'm tired of people who only advocate for the rights of perpetrators

Even if that means a better and much more mature society that no longer justify executions and violence? that means you put your own satisfaction as the only priority, even if that means a worse social development.

The moment you think "personal vendettas" as a valid way to solve differences you are more on the side of the criminals than on the side of justice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why should they live out the rest of their lives in basic comfort when they sent their victims to their graves in a haze of pain torture, agony, and violent brutality?

Because this is a reflection on the society that is punishing them, not of the criminal themselves. It is not that the criminals "deserve" anything, but that the society that is punishing them is already above the death penalty, killing criminals is a step backwards in the development of society, the same as torture to get confessions for example.

The crime defines the criminal, the punishment defines the society.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Using Canada as an example, there was an example of how crime decreased when the death penalty was abolished, but this does not mean that if Japan or South Korea abolished the death penalty, their crime rates would fall further.

In the first place, it is extremely difficult to compare crimes between countries. It's just that it happened to go down "in Canada."

Are there fewer murders in Canada than in Japan? "No!"

There were 743 murders in Canada in 2020, or 1.95 murders per 100,000 people.

There were 251 murders in Japan in 2020, or 0.2 murders per 100,000 people.

Canada's population is approximately 38.25 million. Japan has 120.57 million people. (approximately 3 times the population)

Canada's habitable area: 5,620,487km² (5th place in the world)

Japan's habitable area: 114,885 km² (87th in the world)

There is a considerable difference in terms of population ratio and national land area.

Japan, which has the death penalty, has far fewer murders than all other developed countries. I would like developed countries to call for the abolition of the death penalty only after the number of murders falls below Japan's.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Using Canada as an example, there was an example of how crime decreased when the death penalty was abolished, but this does not mean that if Japan or South Korea abolished the death penalty, their crime rates would fall further.

But the decrease clearly disprove your claim that the death penalty comes with lower rates, with that argument disproved there is no longer a basis to say crime would increase without it.

Are there fewer murders in Canada than in Japan? "No!"

That was not your argument, moving the goalposts mean you already understand your claim was mistaken from the beginning. You said the death penalty decreases crime, it was easy to disprove it.

There is a considerable difference in terms of population ratio and national land area.

That would be an argument to disqualify your comparison, not to disqualify the effect the abolition of the death penalty had in the country, this would mean you are refuting your own argument and supporting the conclusion that the effect of abolishing the death penalty (in the same country) is not what you claimed would happen.

Japan, which has the death penalty, has far fewer murders than all other developed countries

What you failed to prove is that these fewer murders are caused by having the death penalty, so the assumption is still without value, and it can be disproved by the lack of increase observed in countries that eliminated this retrograde form of punishment, like Canada.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I'm 100% for the death penalty. It's a form of punishment.

There are many forms. This is one of them.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Torture, lynching are also forms of punishment, but for modern societies they are (the same as the death penalty) ethically unjustifiable and a sign of underdevelopment. A good judicial system do not require death penalties to bring justice, and a bad system can't have the luxury of the death penalty when it can be abused.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

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