Fugacis comments

Whether it was a PR stunt or a genuine deranged act of contrition isn't so important to me. The point is the message it sends, to girls aspiring to be like these young women; and to the boys and (let's not be coy about this) men who fawn over them in a manner that's well into the realm of ephebophilia.

It is sending out and reinforcing the message that girls' highest goal in life should be to cater to the sexual fantasies of men, and that breaching this vow of chastity is a terrible and grave sin. It's unhealthy and dangerous for everyone concerned. It needs to stop. Celebrities need to be intelligent, well adjusted human beings; not glorified masturbatory fantasy objects.

This has gone far enough. This was an irresponsible and dangerous act by China. Coupled with Abe's increasingly bellicose stance, we're edging closer and closer to armed conflict; something I don't want to see and which would be bad for everyone.

This is goading and a threat. However, Japan needs to stay the course; if there is to be a conflict, let China be the one that fires the first shot, and let Japan react proportionately. This way Japan can be assured to have the moral high ground. Don't turn this into a war first.

This has got to stop.

The intersting part here is the wording. This is about financial support of the "Palestinian Authority", and not of assisting the Palestinian people. In other words, one invests in its own interest, instead of simply helping.

Could just be poor wording on the part of the AFP writer. I agree though, it is rather clumsy. One assumes that it will be earmarked for the Palestinian Authority to improve physical and social infrastructure, policing, agriculture, or whatever else needs attention in Palestine. Or in preparation for execution of whatever final decision is made regarding the two-state solution.

Talks probably won't go any better though. Although both sides agree in principle to the two-state solution, it always flies apart on specifics: East Jerusalem; land swaps; the settlements; right to return. The recent elections in Israel have promised a more moderate stance, curbing Likud's hawkish tendencies, but I'm not sure it will be enough. We've been here too many times before.

Sorry, meant to quote this instead:

Good job China for all those rallies and protests. Even your own economy will be affected.. Would like to see how the communist react to this.

Damn tabbing. >.<

Hmmm, that says a lot about Chinese people as they seem to have gone for it and forgot that China is slowly poisoning them to death in their own cities. A Chinese Hitler could very well happen in today’s China because it would appear that the Chinese as a whole (per capita) still haven’t matured as a collective which is culturally ingrained. This is not racism but fact as you see it every day in Chinese life. Some of those that leave China for places like Canada are the limited ones that have evolved.

You know, you seem to have a rather narcissistic view of Japan's importance if you think that this is going to bring down the Chinese economy. Japan's a declining economic power. A busted flush. China's more interested in South Korean, Taiwanese and Singaporean trade these says, not to mention the rich economic relationships with the USA and the EU. No, China will be just fine.

That said, the Chinese government is really going to need to reel in the mass displays of nationalism. It's a double-edged sword to be wielding; while it may direct people's anger against external enemies, it could well get out of control and turn into generalised mass xenophobia, which really would harm China in the long run. Not to mention that nationalism very often turns against the leaders of that country, as they come to be seen as weak for not satisfying its aggressive urges.

While Japan may not be crippled by a reduction of tourism and trade from Japan, it will be if that starts being directed towards its other customers.

Hmmm, that says a lot about Chinese people as they seem to have gone for it and forgot that China is slowly poisoning them to death in their own cities. A Chinese Hitler could very well happen in today’s China because it would appear that the Chinese as a whole (per capita) still haven’t matured as a collective which is culturally ingrained. This is not racism but fact as you see it every day in Chinese life. Some of those that leave China for places like Canada are the limited ones that have evolved.

Rule of thumb: if you have to say something is not racist, then it probably is. In your case, you have tried to caveat the claim that the Chinese people are innately stupid and inferior with your subjective observation.

Piss off. That is rank racism and any decent moderator should delete that vile turd of a post.

Just who do you think you are to start stating your bigoted and ignorant views as if they are fact? Your observations are based on nothing but personal prejudice. They are worthless and so are you.

Thanks, crate, for drawing attention to these extra attempts to alter the constitution. Abe is attempting more than just rearmament; he is doing his best to turn the clock right back to the prewar Showa state. Completely eroded human rights, no political freedom, and enforced veneration of the state and emperor. In other words, exactly the mindset that led to war in the first place. It'll really start to bite with the first rounds of mass arrests of political undesirables.

Japanese should be just as scared of this bunch of protofascists as any of Japan's neighbours.

“We attended today’s White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals,” the NRA said.

...But you were UNPREPARED to have a meaningful discussion about the mass availability of and ease of access to firearms and how this correlates to the US' massive levels of gun crime compared to countries with strong gun control. This was part of the agenda and the NRA knew it. The only reason they went in, it seems, is so that they could huff and puff and storm off and say that it was the Biden task force that wouldn't listen to their solitary voice of reason.

I think it should, for several reasons:

It would give people more of an incentive to follow politics and understand what the vote actually means. Currently there's a self-perpetuating lock of apathy going on in many countries: people assume that their votes don't matter, and that they can't have any impact on politics; but no vote matters less than the one that's not counted, and so they don't use their influence. The result of this is that politicians know that they only have to actually work to appeal to a relatively small percentage of regular voters. This has a disproportionate harm on certain communities who are bombarded with this real and perceived lack of influence and enfranchisement: the poor, ethnic minorities, people in dysfunctional social and domestic situations, and really any marginalised minority. Getting them out to vote wouldn't make every poor kid from the estates suddenly an expert, but it would make more of them realise that they have a say and that it matters.

Linking in to this, in many democracies there are nevertheless covert methods in place to make sure that certain groups of people can't vote. Examples of this include photo ID laws in several US states, or moving the polling station without informing certain areas, or making it inaccessible to those without a car, or prohibiting early queuing, etc. It's a nefarious effort to make sure that only a select socio-economic class - who are more likely to vote for the establishment - can vote. This comes about because the onus is perceived to be on the people to go to the extra effort to exercise their right to vote. If we have it that the government really is responsible for making sure everyone is able to vote, and that they are accountable if someone has tried to do so and was unable to, this may remedy some of the unfair de facto limitations. After all, every voter has to be accounted for, and it's as much illegal for the governments to not let people vote as it is for people not to vote.

The day would also have to be set aside as a compulsory bank holiday, so that no one would have to be at work and thus unable to reach the polling station.

We would be able to properly gauge what people think of things. Not just how many vote for a particular party, but how many spoil their ballot, or select "none of the above" or "re-open nominations". Often knowing this is as important as the people who vote for a particular party. We often have doubts as to the true popularity of a party, with a winning party that only got 25% of the total vote because so few people bothered to vote. These parties then proclaim the mandate of the people when they truthfully do not have it.

So there are a few. Really, I don't view it as a terrible imposition, and I think society would be far better for it.

‘I want to atone for my crime in a way no one can know.’

So stay in prison and darken the world with your evil no more. That's the best way Ichihashi can 'atone'.

This is maddening. Utterly infuriating. It doesn't matter how bad he felt after his relationship before. Everyone has bad relationships - it is no excuse for killing or hurting someone else. He had control over his own actions; he knew what he was doing.

This whole story proves two things: the first is that Motoyama is a fool; the second is that Ichihashi is a very skilled manipulator. He was skilled to get the late Ms. Hawker to his apartment in the first place. Now that he's been caught, he knows very well how to play to the media and to doddery old fools like Dr. Motoyama. Have a look at the way impressionable teenagers have been fetishising and romanticising him, feeling "sympathy" for his plight, He now has a sob story that not only convinces people to sympathise with him, but even to potentially blame two perfectly innocent women: his ex-girlfriend, and Lindsey Ann Hawker. I would not be surprised if this is how the story will come across.

Psychopaths like Ichihashi are often very good at affecting a superficial charm; it's how they're so successful. We've seen that he was willing to use this charm to lure a woman into his flat to brutally murder her; now he is using that skill to get the public on his side by sobbing at the appropriate cues and presenting himself as a victim. Don't fall for it.

Polygraph tests, as Frungy has said, are imperfect at best as a means to test truthfulness, and at worst are dangerous and self-fulfilling. They measure levels of stress, which is correlated but unrelated to lying. Some people can lie extremely convincingly and have no emotional reaction to doing so. It's also open to abuse in the same way as any interrogation: the quizmaster can ask leading questions, press on certain responses, introduce doubt into the subject, outright accuse, and many more methods to elicit a stressful response.

I'm not sure what to suggest in its place, to be honest. I get the feeling that sex offenders and just people who like power and control over people are naturally drawn to the police, and some will doubtless slip through this net. I think there's a wider rape permissive culture in Japanese society, and especially bastions of conservatism such as the police force, that play an even greater role in allowing these offenders to act with impunity.

Whatever the legal rights and wrongs are, it's a bit naive to expect any kind of cooperation from Korea in this particular case....

Indeed not, and I don't see why the Koreans should be particularly miffed at the fact that he left a trifling burn on a monument celebrating Japan's military aggression.

As for the practice of only letting the prisoners know when their execution will take place when they will be executed, and keeping them in solitary confinement, this is torture, pure and simple.

First, prolonged solitary confinement IS a form of torture. The psychological effects of it are well documented: extreme photosensitivity, hallucination, paranoia, depression, psychosis, and suicidal ideation are among them. http://law.wustl.edu/Journal/22/p325Grassian.pdf Again, there is no deterrent effect in this, and people come out of it more damaged and dangerous than they went in. It is unnecessary and inhumanly cruel: the definition of torture.

Others, including the brilliant Fukushima Mizuho and Amnesty International, have already explained how cruel it is to keep a person wondering if tonight is their last night for decades, so I won't go over it too much here. Suffice to say that even the worst criminals deserve the peace of knowing when they will be executed, and having their chance to make their peace with themselves and their families, say any last apologies, and set their affairs in order. Not to allow them this is, again, cruel and unnecessary.

Could we all please stop with the graphic and gruesome depictions of what we'd like to do to these bastards? The proper response to vicious crime is justice, not revenge fantasies. The latter will do no good for the family of this young woman, and only contributes to further violence. It does nothing to address the wider issue. Making sure that these people face trial, are held accountable for their crime, and sentenced will be the vindication that this family needs, and ultimately the legal precedent and sense of moral victory will help the people of India far more than token retribution.

You can't execute away rape culture in India. The crimes that this young woman and others face will not end with gruesome murder visited on these men. Execution never works as a deterrent; heavier policing, a vigilant and morally strong society, and a supportive justice system and society will.

In the spirit of new year's resolutions, and in entirely good faith, some suggestions for Mr. Kishida to help the possibility of warming relations with Japan's Asian neighbours.

Apologise for Japan's wartime atrocities. Property In the active form, as in: "On behalf of, and as a representative of, the nation of Japan, I offer the sincerest apologies of our country for [Nanjing Massacre/Korean sex slavery/Bataan Death March/Unit 731/other wartime atrocities (delete as appropriate)]." It may help to visit Korea or China and say this, and come August 15, the Emperor being to officially express his regrets/apology would be swell. This won't ease things immediately, but one good deed has a ripple effect, and may well lead to reconciliation. As it is, the unhealed wounds of the war are still festering, and corrupting relations in the present day.

When it comes to territorial disputes, try the softer line for once. Recognise that the Kuril Islands, the Senkaku/Diaoyu Rocks, and Dokdo, were all territorial seizures by force in wartime, which leaves the legitimacy of either side's claim rather vague. Don't cite treaties like the Treaty of Shimonoseki, or really any treaty that was secured at bayonet point during Japan's imperial expansion; by this logic Japan could still claim Taiwan as its territory. Chinese and Koreans will summarily dismiss any of these as Unequal Treaties, and will stand firm that their legitimacy is scuppered by the fact that they were signed under duress. Recognising this state of ambiguity will likely yield much more favourable results, including compromises such as joint resource development, than going in with all guns blazing saying "these rocks are the undisputable territory of Japan and we will not negotiate on this matter". That just gets everyone aggressive, and it leads nowhere nice.

Chew out - publicly - any politician who goes on record to say something stupid and racist. Say that these people are bigots who do not represent the peaceful and conscientious will of the Japanese people. Don't shy away from this just because the people concerned have rich and powerful daddies or the credulous support of racists in society at large.

Cut down on the ultra-nationalist rhetoric. Japan's Asian neighbours have more than a little reason to be rather skittish about the idea of Japan rearming, given that the atrocities are still within living memory for many. Having the top members of the establishment indulging in war nostalgia and denying that anything wrong was done does not help with the effort to portray Japan as a peace-loving nation. No, you do not have the right to expect the Koreans and the Chinese to "get over it". Japan did this, and as a representative and agent of the state you can own that responsibility.

Recognising the regional tensions, keep an open line with Beijing and Seoul, and even Pyongyang, on any potential shifts in Japanese foreign policy doctrine, particularly where military matters are concerned. When making announcements on matters such as Article 9, SDF deployment policy, etc, or even governance of maritime territory, have the ambassadors in each country briefed to be able to talk to the local press and give details.

These are some things I can think of that would do wonders. Right now, it seems as if Japan, Korea and China are still fighting the old wars, albeit via the proxy of modern territorial disputes. I'd love to see this end.

And what was the bus driver doing while the woman was being gang raped? Making sure they stayed behind yellow line?

Oh, you'd be surprised and appalled at how useless bystanders can be when violent crime is being committed in front of them, or indeed anything that might expose them to personal risk. When in situations like that, a lot of people just won't act, however strongly they abhor the act. It certainly doesn't help that India - like practically everywhere in the world, to greater or lesser extents - has a rape culture that condones and justifies attacks on women. It's one thing among many that ensures that the driver would not be stirred to intervene.

Proves can't depend on powers & authorities. Depend on self-defense. Dress against titillation. Don't display charms to sundry. Don't let faculties be blunted by medication & alcohol except in safe environment. List goes on depending on how safe you want to be / how much you dare to risk. Finally hope for good luck.

Or, you know, men could not gang rape women and girls (or other men for that matter), and society and government could take responsibility for that. But no, all you have is things women could do to possibly avoid being attacked, because clearly clearly a woman is inviting rape on herself by 'dressing with titillation' and 'displaying charms to sundry'.

Finally hope for good luck.

Yeah, fingers crossed that women can walk out of their doors one day and there won't be a rapist outside (though with India's laws on marital rape and its backwards view of rape as an honour crime rather than a violation of rights, it's not like they're that much safer indoors).

I'm glad the baby was taken in safely. This could have been an infinitely more tragic story than it already is; she could easily have died of exposure. I hope she gets a better life than the one she started with.

I might be sticking my neck out, but I hope the mother is safe as well. I don't know her circumstances: it could be a desperate and outcast teenager; it could be someone homeless and/or mentally handicapped; it could be an extreme case of post-partum depression. In any case, one has to be incredibly desperate and troubled to abandon a baby in a bush, and if she is living on the streets, she's in danger too.

Keeping someone on death row and executing them is more expensive than keeping them in prison for a lifetime.

Even were this not the case, I would still prefer to foot the bill in taxes for these people to be kept in prison rather than have them executed. I've said it before many times, but capital punishment only serves to bring out and encourage the worst in people and society. It's premeditated revenge of a kind that fuels bloodlust and violence; not just in the abstract, but in concrete figures too. It is also subject to racism and other forms of prejudice, being as it is a moral judgement of someone's worth.

It's also symptomatic of a society that thinks that evil is something personal that can just be executed away. By focusing our wrath on this, we ignore the wider societal factors that breed crime.

Another criminal sees justice! No more will the people of Japan have to live in fear of sexagenarians purloining their small change. Have no fear; the forces of justice are here to protect the little round bits of copper that you'd forgotten you even had and didn't have any plans to use.

I'm sure Japanese people can sleep easy at night as long as the justice system is pursuing not just petty but trifling theft with such ardent zeal.

China just doesn't have any claim at all; the crime was not committed in China, nor did involve Chinese jurisdiction in any sense. I'd conclude that they're just trying to protect their man, though not exactly for altruistic reasons; Liu being punished abroad for what a good number of Chinese fenqing see as a "patriotic act" could well turn some of the anger that's currently directed at Japan towards the Chinese government. This is why nationalism is a dangerous tool for governments to use - it can just as easily turn against them when they are perceived to fail "the nation".

China's role in this case is to ensure that Liu, as a Chinese citizen, is granted a fair trial and will not suffer cruel or unusual punishment. As it is, Korean jails are more humanitarian than Chinese ones, and he has not committed a capital crime. It's a fair cop basically.

I'd agree that South Korea has the strongest case for prosecution. The crime was committed under their jurisdiction (as lucabrasi has helpfully clarified, embassies are not the territory of the country whose diplomatic mission is located there), and he has been caught and charged for that offence already. South Korea's legal system is also not terribly dissimilar to Japan's, and Korean prisons aren't picnics either. Extraditing him to Japan would involve greater legal complexity and less compelling evidence than his charge in South Korea.

He'll be punished anyway, whether for the embassy arson or the attack on Yasukuni (though I'd happily see that revolting place burned to the ground myself). The diplomatic fracas that would result from him being extradited to Japan just isn't worth it.

The most charitable thing I can say about this lunatic is that he seriously needs help.

I've said it on here before, but the death penalty is not befitting of any nation that dares to call itself enlightened. It is justice reduced to mere barbarism. It's the worst, most vengeful characteristics of human nature elevated to the ideals of the state.

Moreover, the effect of the death penalty on crime levels in society is actually the opposite of what its proponents claim: in studies of crime rates in US cities shortly following executions, it was found that violent crimes, including murder, actually increased in frequency. This is called the brutalisation effect. It happens as people internalise the logic - as sanctified by the state - that violence and murder is a valid way to address wrongs committed against oneself. The effect of an execution is to whet angry people's appetite for blood, which then leads them to become more violent themselves - only under the impression that their violence is somehow righteous vengeance.

Any civilised nation will treat crime as an indictment of its society. Those nations that really do have the moral courage to examine the roots and origins of crime, to look into the minds of criminals however twisted they may be, and seek to put an end to the conditions that foster crime - those are the countries that achieve reductions in crime, and manage to address their social tensions.

Nations like Japan and the United States, who think that evil is something you can just execute away, are doomed to perpetuate their broken societies forever. They do not deserve to be counted among the civilised nations.

Ma called on the East China Sea chain’s three claimants - Taiwan, China and Japan - to put aside their disputes and hold dialogues to jointly develop the rich resources there. He suggested bilateral or trilateral talks “to resolve the issue in a peaceful way.”

My respect for President Ma has increased greatly; he seems to be the only one of the leaders actually willing to bypass all of the "national sovereignty and integrity" bullshit and say what this dispute is really about: fish and minerals. It's really an eminently sensible suggestion, but since when has Japan been receptive to those?

I also really love General Otani upthread. One minute she hates the US, the next she loves them and is utterly convinced that President Obama is going to send the US Navy to war over a couple of rocks in the East China Sea. All this posturing, the nose-thumbing, the sabre-rattling will eventually lead to a confrontation, the results of which will be pretty undignified, messy, and will probably get a few people killed.

Then we'll get Japan's customary whining about how it's not fair and they started it and they're bullies and America should come and tell them off and let just us play with the toys.

Regardless of any other arguments, just on financial grounds (i.e. direct and indirect effect on the UK economy from tourism) I'd vote to keep the royal family. I have reservations about their behaviour, e.g. towards Diana, but as a commercial decision I'd keep them, especially since most of the royal family started paying tax.

This is transparently false, though it's one of the monarchist crowd's favourite contentions. There is no evidence whatsoever to say that it is the monarchy that attracts tourists; especially since Buckingham Palace remains closed to tourists for the majority of the year, and when it is opened up it is to a minimal number of rooms. In fact, Legoland Windsor far outstrips either Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle in the number of annual visitors. The majority of overseas tourists come to London for the iconic pictures: the Houses of Parliament, the London Eye, the Thames, the Tower of London, Saint Paul's Cathedral, Westminster Abbey, and yes, Buckingham Palace. They never get to see the Queen, nor is there any indication that they want to.

Monarchists have to prove that getting rid of the monarchy would deter tourists, and this they have failed to do. The Palace at Versailles is the most visited attraction in the French Republic, and possibly the most visited attraction in Europe, more than two centuries after the French rid themselves of their monarchy. The whole place is now open to tourists, the history made wonderfully available. Few in France are clamouring for the return of the monarchy either.

However, even if this contention were true, it is utterly degrading that we should compromise the integrity of British democracy for commercial reasons; as if a bit of extra cash in tourist revenue is more important than the right of British citizens to have fully accountable, functioning democratic representation.

I'll be on the Southbank demonstrating with Republic. This whole crass spectacle is an insult to the people of this country who are suffering the recession and the most sadistic cuts in generations. That there is such gluttonous celebration of hereditary privilege on the Thames while people in London can't afford to feed themselves or their families and live on the streets is a grotesque farce.

I'll be turning my back on the lot of them, and it's not because of the war.

A derelict ship sent drifting off into the ocean after a major natural disaster, discovered a year later? It's a good setting for a ghost story if nothing else...

So I would say return to having the sentence carried out in public. This alone would do more to make the reality of the death sentence real to the population, much more so than a higher number being executed behind closed doors. Why should the state get to carry out the ultimate punishment behind the curtain; it seems counter intuitive to the whole purpose of capital punishment. As to the convict who is being executed, well his right to privacy should be a tertiary concern at the least. His/Her crime was, after all, very public.

Oh brilliant, bread and circuses. Really classy. Why not have them fight to the death in a colosseum while you're at it? The masses really need their blood sports, after all. Nothing to entertain people like watching others die and cheering it on.

That you could even suggest that without irony is grotesque, and you should be ashamed of yourself for it. It debases people to the most vile, bloodthirsty savages to encourage them to enjoy the death of a fellow human being, and you'll soon find that the result is a population of people who are more brutal, more sadistic, more drawn to violence, and more prone to crime themselves. That's the brutalisation effect, right there.

I couldn't watch anyone being executed, no matter what they'd done.

The alternatives to capital punishment are also barbaric to some degree.

An innocent person could also suffer a life in prison... that's very cruel as well.

A life in prison doesn't have to be hell, and indeed an essential aspect of prisons in many countries, particularly in northern Europe, is rehabilitation: i.e. offering the prisoner the opportunity to reform away from a criminal environment. Even Myra Hindley was able to pursue an Open University degree in prison. We keep prisoners locked away for the protection of society, not for revenge.

But even if we do accept that two decades in prison is a "barbaric" punishment, it is at least reversible if the prisoner is found innocent. The prisoner can live to see his/her name cleared, can receive redress, and can work on making something good of the remainder of his/her life. This is not the case if they are executed.

"We have judged that it is difficult to immediately abolish the death penalty,considering the current situation where the number of violent crimes does not fall and crimes continue"

Yeah, good logic there, Noda. The death penalty is failing to act as a deterrent, so let's keep it, because otherwise...what? It's a typical Japanese hand wringing excuse: "oh, I know it's a perverse system, but changing things would be 'difficult', so let's leave it as it is". This man really is spineless.

The death penalty is not befitting of any nation that dares to call itself enlightened. Execution works to delegitimise the idea that killing is wrong. It renders this idea as a relative - killing is wrong except for some people, and when it is done by some people. This harm is not just abstract; studies in the United States have shown that immediately following high profile executions, there is frequently a corresponding increase in murder rates. This happens as people in society internalise the logic that death is a legitimate punishment for someone who has wronged them. http://www.e-archives.ky.gov/pubs/Public_Adv/nov97/crime_control.htm

Worse, the moralistic pronouncement of the death penalty detracts from efforts towards understanding, and thus preventing crime. Much as we may revile them, the fact remains that murderers are not born - they're made. Particularly the case in areas with a massive bifurcation between rich and poor, but also in dysfunctional households and social settings, in some environments crime simply becomes the normal route for a person to take in his/her life. It becomes something that he/she sees as inevitable.

If Noda REALLY wants a reduction in overall crime rates, he would do well to look into why this is the case in Japan, and what can be done to mend this appalling situation. As it is, simply executing a perpetrator puts a stop to this process of healing. It makes the simplistic pronouncement that the individual is naturally wicked, and killing them will put a stop to it. And thus the cycle continues, with more and more death.