Abolishing death penalty 'inappropriate,' says justice minister

"Inappropriate"? A week after Iwao Hakamada was finally freed after spending 46 years on death row in a huge miscarriage of justice. The Japanese government is truly death and blind to the reality that surrounds them.

This is Japan, so just continue everything just before.

Can the "anti" people explain how anything BUT the death penalty would be appropriate justice for this subhuman here? He killed a group of immensely talented people - each and every one of them contributing to the society infinitely more than he's every done:

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20241002/p2g/00m/0na/024000c

Mealy-mouthed words from a politician confident he will never be challenged in his hypocrisy. "The public 'largely' considers it unavoidable," meaning it is not unanimous but the death penalty should stay nonetheless because the majority supports it. However, to use different surnames should not be forced amid "divided public opinion", which he actually misrepresents because public opinion is in favour. Either public opinion is central or it is not. You cannot pick and choose.

death penalty is Barbaric and Ineffective

Abolishing death penalty 'inappropriate,' says justice minister

Well said, Mr. Minister.

Japantoday link for my previous message. I couldn't find the story one hour ago. My comment still stands - why should the Kyoani murderer live? Good job to his lawyers though - they had to dig really really deep and scrape

https://japantoday.com/category/crime/kyoto-anime-arsonist-to-continue-to-contest-liability-in-appeal-trial

would be "inappropriate" as the public largely considers it "unavoidable for heinous crimes."

That is a non-sequitur, popularity is not justification to deny the removal of an unethical measure, specially when the Japanese government insists on saying they are focused on protecting human rights. What is inappropiate is to say one thing but then do the opposite as in this case.

Can the "anti" people explain how anything BUT the death penalty would be appropriate justice for this subhuman here? 

The crime defines the criminal, the penalty defines the society that imposes it. Unless you want the justice system to be on the same level of the criminals the only appropriate thing is to hold the system to a much higher standard.

Have a referendum. Let the people decide

That is a non-sequitur, popularity is not justification to deny the removal of an unethical measure,

Morality is nested in the group. It is the agreed upon behaviour, implicit or explicit, between two or more individuals be that group as small as a couple, or as large as a nation.

Let the people decide what is ethical and just.

Have a referendum. Let the people decide

A referendum do not address the moral and ethical problems with the death penalty, it would just be an excuse to pretend popularity makes self contradictory measures magically fine.

Morality is nested in the group

If the group have decided human rights are worth being protected, and can't justify an unethical measure by need or even strong beneficial effects that means it has to remove that measure to be congruent to its own standards.

A referendum do not address the moral and ethical problems with the death penalty,

Morality doesn't exist in a vacuum. it IS the group that decides what is and what isn't "moral". Morality is the agreed upon behaviour, implicit or explicit, between two or more individuals. C'est tout

Morality doesn't exist in a vacuum

Again, that does absolutely nothing to refute the fact that if the society has decided human rights are worth protecting then the only available option (to be still logically congruent) is to eliminate all the measures that contradict this posture when it is realistically possible. The death penalty can be eliminated without any problem. No part of the argument ever depends on morality being on a vacuum, it actually addresses the point of the society that upholds it.

Pretending people can decide one thing and then contradict this decision arbitrarily without even making an effort to argue how is just running away from the discussion when recognizing the posture is self contradictory and can't be defended.

C'est tout

Of course you are free to stop trying to defend something, openly declaring so of course leaves to other people to bring further arguments that demonstrate that something is not valid.

The weakest point of Makihara's position - as others have indicated - is essentially the "court of public opinion" don't want it.

But the "court of public opinion" disagrees with many govt policies and actions / inactions, but they never sway in their concrete hardened focus on their opinion and rarely take into account the position of others.

When confronted with this anomaly the oft heard response is "We will seek to gain the understanding of the people".

Classic having their cake and eating it too.

If you want to retain the death penalty, just say it out loud and clear "People who kill people deserve to be killed".

Stop all of the pretendy, pretendy obfuscation.

Again, that does absolutely nothing to refute the fact that if the society has decided human rights are worth protecting then the only available option (to be still logically congruent) is to eliminate all the measures that contradict this posture when it is realistically possible. 

Morality is not based on some ethereal concept of jurisprudence. It's simply what is agreed upon to be right or wrong, implicitly or explicitly, by the group. Some groups (societies) have decided that people who commit heinous crimes waive their human rights as a result. This is considered "moral", by such societies. Japan is a society in which the group is paramount. As such...the group should decide whether or not capital punishment is moral.

"it IS the group that decides what is and what isn't "moral"."

You are a moral, historical and cultural relativist. And there is no wrong able to be derived from any first principles, such as murder or stealing is wrong, because it just depends on the group at the time, though what group's opinion within nested groups might be an issue. But, in effect, there is no real morality beyond opinion. Are you happy with that, Geeter? I mean, it is a position; a very postmodern one too. So, where opinion supports separate surnames or female monarchs that is fine, I am sure you will agree. The politicians often don't though, so are they immoral?

death penalty is needed to destroy living evidence, in that way , the dead can not appeal or claim the truth.

No wonder they want to keep this regime. useful to hide inconvenient truth when needed.

Morality is not based on some ethereal concept of jurisprudence

So not C'est tout after all.

Exactly zero part of the comment has to do with jurisprudence, nothing at all. You are trying to make up contrary arguments to avoid addressing the actual arguments that refute your position, that is a strawman fallacy and a well known tactic from people that refuse to argue logically when recognizing the lack of value of their position.

When it is easy to demonstrate with logical arguments (again, cero jurisprudence here) that a group is contradicting itself with what it supports there is no problem with demanding for that group to be congruent with what they themselves say are their values.

Some groups (societies) have decided that people who commit heinous crimes waive their human rights as a result.

That does not apply to Japan, which still says death row prisoners have human rights, says the human rights should be protected and that says convenience or profit is not a valid reason to kill people, just to contradict itself in everything with the death penalty.

Japan is a society in which the group is paramount. As such...the group should decide whether or not capital punishment is moral.*

With the obvious solution that the group (represented by its own government) becomes congruent in their actions and declarations. Either by recognizing they don't consider human rights valuable or by actually using them as a parameter to see what is or not justified.

In this case the logical incongruency is obviously clear, but for politicians it is much more politically profitable to pretend nothing wrong is happening and will say one thing while doing the opposite.

As mentioned in the comment you choose to ignore, the government has done a lot of things against the public opinion, mostly when it benefits the ruling class. That it is choosing not to do it in this issue is just to accumulate popularity points (that will be used the next time it contradicts the public's opinion) even if it has to act breaking their own logic.

As mentioned in the comment you choose to ignore, the government has done a lot of things against the public opinion, mostly when it benefits the ruling class.

Actually the government represents the public opinion.

Actually the government represents the public opinion.

LOL

Actually the government represents the public opinion.

Ideally, yes. In practice, no.

Did the public agree to a consumption tax hike from 8% to 10%...or the further proposed 15%?

No

With the obvious solution that the group (represented by its own government) 

The government often does not act according to the values or wishes of the group.

A referendum more accurately reflects the values and wishes of the group.

Actually the government represents the public opinion.

As the previous comments clearly show, frequently this is not the case.

When there are valid logic arguments that demonstrate one measure is not congruent with the position the country has decided upon there is a justification to change that measure even if the change is not popular.

I once tried to bring up the subject to a group of Japanese acquaintances - do they feel the death penalty is OK, or should it be abolished? They were all very puzzled about my question - they weren't sure why I thought it might be an issue. One of them said, "We're taught in school that the death penalty is fair and correct, so I think everyone in Japan feels this way."

80% of Japanese support the death penalty, unfortunately. The change is very slow.

Well, some good news finally.

If the death penalty is not abolished, the living conditions on death row, which can last for decades in some cases, must be significantly more humane than the current restrictions. Forcing inmates to remain seated the entire day is a cruel and unnecessary form of punishment.

If the death penalty is not abolished, the living conditions on death row, which can last for decades in some cases, must be significantly more humane than the current restrictions. Forcing inmates to remain seated the entire day is a cruel and unnecessary form of punishment.

And? So what’s the problem?

bass4funk

If the death penalty is not abolished, the living conditions on death row, which can last for decades in some cases, must be significantly more humane than the current restrictions. Forcing inmates to remain seated the entire day is a cruel and unnecessary form of punishment.

And? So what’s the problem?

Because cruel and unnecessary punishment is against international treaties on human and civil rights. Why can't an inmate be allowed to move around their already tiny cell?

ebisenToday  08:00 am JST

Can the "anti" people explain how anything BUT the death penalty would be appropriate justice for this subhuman here? He killed a group of immensely talented people - each and every one of them contributing to the society infinitely more than he's every done:

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20241002/p2g/00m/0na/024000c

Is it "justice" we want, or "vengeance"? The hard thing to get one's head around is the possibility that there is no hope of real "justice" done by any punishment. Quickly snuffing out the consciousness of this profoundly disturbed wretch seems merciful in comparison to allowing him to ruminate in solitude for years on end. Regardless of which one feels more appropriate, neither rights the wrong or satisfies most of our understanding of "justice".

Don't expect much from Makihara. Unfortunately he's a representative from my district, but he's never actually won the popular vote there. He often makes rather ignorant incendiary xenophobic and conpiratorial posts on Twitter. How he managed to land a cabinet position is beyond me.

Maybe he'll square the circle by having capital punishment for married couples who use different surnames.

You are a moral, historical and cultural relativist

I'm an objective realist who views the world as it is.

The Ripper!

Actually the government represents the public opinion.

Good to know you feel like that about the government in your country, the US.

Good to know you feel like that about the government in your country, the US.

And now Japan seems to be upholding their common-sense approach to the death penalty.

bass4funk

Good to know you feel like that about the government in your country, the US.

And now Japan seems to be upholding their common-sense approach to the death penalty.

Guess like The Ripper! you believe your government presents public opinion.

Good to know you feel like that about the government in your country, the US.

Yes.

Guess like The Ripper! you believe your government presents public opinion.

I never said that, but the people in this country still overwhelmingly support it. They’re smart.

Personally, i think live imprisonment is worse and that is because of a personal experience. In 2016 icwas detained for 26 days in the new taipei detention center. I for the first 10 days, i did not know why, was tortured every day. After release icwaz declared fully innocent of charges i learned about only after those 10 days.

but while in detention i had no communication, did not know for how long, was in a cell with a murderer and a rapist( they were nice to me). And when finaly i could see my lawyer( for 3 min) he told me i could get 2 to 10 years if found guilty.

i thoufht having to stay in there that long was worse then death penalty and i still think so

Fundamentally, He is improper to minister of justice or politician itself. when train was delayed in person accident, he posted own irritation only on SNS, had no even interest to present society where increasing suicides despite politician.

Also, he is labeling as if criticism to ruling party LDP is "conspiracy of neighboring countries" without showing basis. Besides, he still have been pointed out deep relation with far-rights religious cult.

Given that a large percentage of confessions are forced and in reality inadmissible in a fair and just system, the death penalty for all but the most clear "caught in the act + video of the offense clearly showing the perps face" with anything less being given a max sentence of life behind bars is needed. The recent case of the longest death row inmate being found not guilty after all this time shows that innocent people get executed along with the guilty.

Sad to say it but Japans criminal justice system and police procedures are 3rd rate in all too many cases. Time to catch up and improve standards of policing and standards of incarceration. Imagine the taxpayer money wasted on convicting so many innocent while the actual guilty are free to re-offend down the road. Japanese people are not kept safer in such a system.

Abolishing death penalty 'inappropriate,' says justice minister

Agreed. This is what the people of Japan want. It is the law. This is a law abiding country.

Have a referendum. Let the people decide

And will "the people" condemn the criminal to death and tie the rope around the criminal's neck? It's easy to think a killer should be executed. I suspect it's far less easy for an individual to make that decision and carry out the act.

In the UK, capital punishment was abolished for murder in 1965. At the time, public opinion was generally in favour of keeping it. But those elected to make the laws decided otherwise. I can understand why.

I support rope choking criminals for their heinous action against others

And will "the people" condemn the criminal to death and tie the rope around the criminal's neck?

Yes, and without payment. Actually this job should be reserved for the victims family.

Why so much sympathy for the murderer?

Agreed. This is what the people of Japan want. It is the law.

The previous argument is till valid since you could refute it, since the government frequently still do what the people don't want there is no problem with making the practice disappear, it would make the position of the country congruent with what it says and prevents from appearing hypocritical as right now.

This is a law abiding country.

That is why the demand is for the laws to be changed, this is a non-argument since nobody is asking for laws to be broken.

I support rope choking criminals for their heinous action against others

But it is much more positive and desirable not to do it.

Yes, and without payment. Actually this job should be reserved for the victims family.

Why so much sympathy for the murderer?

You are making it more clear that your support for the measure comes from a desire for violence and revenge, that is not what societies should be aiming for.

And no, there is no sympathy for the murdered, simply a desire to make the government at least a little bit more ethical than them.

And will "the people" condemn the criminal to death and tie the rope around the criminal's neck? It's easy to think a killer should be executed. I suspect it's far less easy for an individual to make that decision and carry out the act.

Yes, there ARE people who are tasked with doing just that. For any child killer, I'll happily volunteer...no pay needed

that is not what societies should be aiming for.

Each society determines what it should or shouldn't do. That's how groups function

Why so much sympathy for the murderer?

With basically forced and coerced confessions at the hands of investigators who's only aim is to close the case with a conviction, you cant be sure the murderer is actually "the murderer" or someone forced to confess to get rest after days of continuing brutal interrogation.

By executing someone for a crime, in Japan at least with a 99% confession rate, obtained by submitting people to endless duress, you cant be certain the convicted actually committed the crime. Thats why. Too many people innocent get murdered by the state to achieve that 99% confession rate .

Each society determines what it should or shouldn't do. That's how groups function

And the Japanese society has decided to aim to be better and respect human rights, reduce inequalities, aim for peaceful solutions, etc. The kind of society that does better and lead to happier people during the course of history. According to the own Japanese society they should discard the death penalty, to be congruent it has to choose to either act according to what it is aiming, or else recognize their aim is not valid and society sees value in revenge, violence and killing as a way to solve a problem.

And the Japanese society has decided to aim to be better and respect human rights, reduce inequalities, aim for peaceful solutions, etc. 

Yes, it has

 According to the own Japanese society they should discard the death penalty

Your statement is false.

A survey conducted by the Japanese government in 2019 showed that 80.8 percent of respondents supported the death penalty

to be congruent it has to choose to either act according to what it is aiming

Japan's actions are congruent with its citizens values and wishes. While you may not view capital punishment as just, they do. You are not them. Your views are not congruent with theirs. That's OK...because you don't have a say...unless you naturalise. Most Japanese feel no sense of conflict between upholding its citizens' human rights up until the point they relinquish those rights voluntarily by murdering either 2 or more innocent people or by killing someone in a particularily cruel manner. That is congruent with their notions of justice.

Yes, it has

Therefore proving where it should aim.

Your statement is false.

Since you are unable to prove so with arguments this is what is false. Once again something being popular do not justify it when what the own society decided implies it is an immoral, unethical option compared with the alternatives.

Japan's actions are congruent with its citizens values and wishes

It is easy to demonstrate the contrary, the society supposedly consider human rights worth defending, but on the case of the death penalty it is deeply into a collective cognitive dissonance by choosing an option that degrades the value of human life, and prioritizes the satisfaction obtained by killing in order to solve a problem. Both situations are mutually exclusive so it is incongruent.

 You are not them.

Neither are you, yet you states as a fact what they do. Which is obviously invalid and a false appeal to your own authority as a representative of what the collective thinks.

I on the other hand present arguments that demonstrate logically how incongruent is the position of defending the death penalty and the value of human rights at the same time. When you are completely unable to argue against the arguments, just claiming an incongruent position is not so just because you say so.

Most Japanese feel no sense of conflict between upholding its citizens' human rights up until the point they relinquish those rights voluntarily by murdering either 2 or more innocent people or by killing someone in a particularily cruel manner. 

The prisioners in Japan are still considered humans and have rights, "feeling no sense of conflict" is not an excuse to avoid recognizing the inherent conflict of pretending to hold human rights as the top priority but then ignore them and make revenge and the desire to kill to solve a problem the actual priority.

since you are unable to prove so with arguments this is what is false.

It's a false that the Japanese don't support capital punishment

proof: https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13047497

Therefore proving where it should aim.

"should" and "aught" aren't "is" and "are"

your notion of justice is incongruent with theirs

Most Japanese feel no sense of conflict between upholding its citizens' human rights up until the point they relinquish those rights voluntarily by murdering either 2 or more innocent people or by killing someone in a particularily cruel manner. That is congruent with their notions of justice.

Criminals have received the death penalty for a single murder.

It's a false that the Japanese don't support capital punishment

Congratulations you have disproved something that I have never claimed.

Now, you can try to disprove the actual arguments that demonstrate the inherent conflict of saying human rights are the top priority while acting as if violence and satisfaction of a desire of revenge are actually the priority.

"should" and "aught" aren't "is" and "are"*

If the population says they are aiming for a goal, then that is what they should be working on. there is no complication here. If a person say he is trying to learn a language he should study and practice that language, if he is not then that that person is being hypocritical and incongruent, something solved by accepting he is not aiming for that goal, or else actually doing something to achieve that.

*your notion of justice is incongruent with theirs*

And since it was easy to prove the notion of justice is incongruent with what the society expressed as their goal the obvious problem to be solved is to correct that notion so it actually aligns with what the society says it should be.

If the population says they are aiming for a goal, then that is what they should be working on.

Captial punishment isn't incongruent with Japan's "aim to be better and respect human rights, reduce inequalities, aim for peaceful solutions, etc."  because "being better at" doesn't necessarily mean extending the right for those who commit particularily henious murders to retain their right to live. There is no such thing as absolute equality. Should a murder recieve a fine equal to that for a parking ticket? Of course not. Your premise is flawed if you apply it to murder. The "peaceful solution" refers to conflict with neighbors in order to prevent violence. In the case of murders, the violence has already occurred and the victim of it is an innocdent member of society. In such cases capital punishment is the "peaceful solution" as the violent murder can no longer assault inmates, guards or innocent people after being released, so the threat of lethal violence has been neutralised. This is what Japanese society has determined to be just. That you've misinterpreted their sense of justice to be "incongruent" with respecting human rights is simply your having become in your own entagled sense of justice and equality. The human rights being honoured in the case of capital punishment is the rights of the murdered innocent to have been redressed through the appropriate punishment. That right being the ability to live freely within a society without being physically assaulted or brutally murdered.

*entagled in your own sense of justice and equality

And since it was easy to prove the notion of justice is incongruent with what the society expressed as their goal

It's easy when you use pretzel logic and a premise that misses the mark.

Once you've, through your own agency, taken it upon yourself to brutally snuff out the life of another, you've forfeited your rights and are no longer fit to be a member of society. This is most certainly "congruent" with Japan's ideal of having a better, just society. It's incongruent with yours because you assume the right of the individual supersedes the rights of the group. That's another country...not this one. This society deems that the threat of lethal violence from an individual when actualised means that individual is no longer a member of society and must be punished according to the group's determination. As mentioned previously 80% of Japanese support capital punishment. Ergo...capital punishment is "congruent" with the Japanese notion of justice...and the "betterment" of society.

Criminals have received the death penalty for a single murder.

Yes, as I had noted. Here's the wiki scoop which confirms the the Ministry of Justice standing on the matter of capital punishment:

"Death sentences are usually passed in cases of multiple murders, although there have been some extremely grave cases where individuals who committed a single murder have been sentenced to death and executed, such as those involving torture, extreme brutality or kidnapping with a demand for ransom."

Unpopular opinion:

I'm completelly against the Death Penalty, except for those who murdered and rape children, or similar atrocious cases.

However those have to be 110% clear proven guilty, with undoubtable evidences, not just based on a forced confession under torture, by the Japanese hostage system. Forced confession doesn't mean proof.

And yes, the executioner should definitely be a family member, preferably the father, if he desires so.

So, are the politicians immoral when they don't follow public opinion, Geeter? You seem to have missed that part in your desire to equate what is right with what is opinion. Let's just leave aside the fact that opinion is not really opinion when it is never questioned or examined.

This is Japan, and the will of the people is evoked in the laws of the land, which has the death penalty.

The government rarely consults with the people when introducing laws.

there have been no executions in over two years, would be "inappropriate" as the public largely considers it "unavoidable for heinous crimes."

However, campaigners have questioned the wording of opinion polls and widespread lack of awareness of how executions are carried out.

“Analysis of opinion polls, including in Japan, has shown that the support for the death penalty can be greatly affected by the methodology used or the timing of the survey,” says Chiara Sangiorgio, Amnesty International’s campaigner against the death penalty.

Captial punishment isn't incongruent with Japan's "aim to be better and respect human rights, reduce inequalities, aim for peaceful solutions, etc." because "being better at" doesn't necessarily mean extending the right for those who commit particularily henious murders to retain their right to live.

Yes it does, by definition respet for human rights requires choosing the option that better reflects this, killing prisioners for no other reason but to satisfy a desire of revenge and giving pleasure to those that want that person to be killed definitely means Japan is being incongruent.

There is no such thing as absolute equality

No part of the argument requires absolute equality, you are again refuting things only you have mentioned because you can't refute what is actually used here as an argument.

It's incongruent with yours because you assume the right of the individual supersedes the rights of the group.

Absolutely irrelevant, it is incongruent with what Japan declares to be its priority, my personal opinion about it has nothing to do with the demonstration of this incongruency.

 As mentioned previously 80% of Japanese support capital punishment. Ergo...capital punishment is "congruent" with the Japanese notion of justice

And this is still refuted by the same argument, when the Japanese population say to support something, any measures that are contrary to that declaration are obviously incongruent, no matter how popular they are. Having an incongruent sense of justice is the explanation for the situation, not an excuse.

This is Japan, and the will of the people is evoked in the laws of the land, which has the death penalty.

The previous argument is till valid since you could refute it, since the government frequently still do what the people don't want there is no problem with making the practice disappear, it would make the position of the country congruent with what it says and prevents from appearing hypocritical as right now.

The government rarely consults with the people when introducing laws.

And thereby do not best represent the public's interests.

“Analysis of opinion polls, including in Japan, has shown that the support for the death penalty can be greatly affected by the methodology used or the timing of the survey,”

This is true of any survey. That said, 80% is a significant number and it has been a consistent result throughout several polls throughout the years. The latest survey I could find was from 2021. The results mirror results from the 1980s, 90s, 2000s and 2010s.

And thereby do not best represent the public's interests.

Not necessarily, the population can be wrong about things, not popular and not in their best interests are two very different things.

This is true of any survey. That said, 80% is a significant number and it has been a consistent result throughout several polls throughout the years. 

This of course is just trying to sidestep the actual argument against death penalty that is based on the incongruency of making human rights a supposed first priority, but then puts vengeance and the desire to see a human die as the actual priority in the case of the death penalty. A lot of people sharing incongruent opinions do not make those magically correct.

This of course is just trying to sidestep the actual argument against death penalty that is based on the incongruency of making human rights a supposed first priority

The human rights point has already been addressed. In Japan, people forfeit their human rights when they take it upon themselves to murder someone through their own agency. In Japan, the rights of the group, espeicially in terms of safety supersede the rights of the individual. This is congruent with Japan's notion of justice and their notion of a better society. That you disagree is fine...you're not them. Your thinking is incongruent with theirs.

So, are the politicians immoral when they don't follow public opinion, Geeter?

They're immoral when they act in their own interests, such as in grifting scandals, cases of sexual harrasment in which they use their power over victims, and when doing such things as freezing citizens' bank accounts when they protest mandates of experimental vaccines, thereby forcing citizens to risk injury against their own volition.

The human rights point has already been addressed. In Japan, people forfeit their human rights when they take it upon themselves to murder someone through their own agency. 

You have made this false claim before but never provide any argument to defend it, people on the death row in Japan are considered humans and have human rights. This alone demonstrate you consider claiming falsehoods a valid way to defend a point, which completely invalidates it.

 In Japan, the rights of the group, espeicially in terms of safety supersede the rights of the individual.

Which has absolutely no relevance to the argument that as long as the population consider life a fundamental human right (and in Japan they do) it becomes contradictory to make it less of a priority compared with the right to kill somebody else for pleasure. You have given up trying to address this argument precisely because you have no way to defeat it.

This is congruent with Japan's notion of justice and their notion of a better society. 

As demonstrated with the arguments you could not refute this is false, both positions are mutually exclusive, therefore incongruent to what Japanese people think is just and how to be a better society.

That you disagree is fine...you're not them. Your thinking is incongruent with theirs.

Disagreeing is not the important point, being able to demonstrate the incongruency with logic and valid arguments is what demonstrate that the thinking of the own Japanese is incongruent with their actions.