Arama They Didn't

11:54 am - 04/13/2012

Why Japan and U.S. Should Ban the Death Penalty

As a response to the interesting discussion sparked by this post about the death sentence of the "Black Widow Killer", I thought this would be a relevant article to post:

NEW YORK — Japan's decision to hang three prisoners after nearly two years without executions has been severely criticized by Amnesty International, which calls it a "retrograde step." Justice Minister Toshio Ogawa authorized the executions of three men, stating that this was his "duty" as minister. "Justifying acts which violate human rights as a 'minister's duty' is unacceptable. Rather, it is the responsibility of leaders to address crime without resorting to the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment," said Catherine Baber, Amnesty International's Asia-Pacific Deputy Director.

In the Group of Eight leading economies only Japan and the U.S. carry out the death penalty. Capital punishment has a long history in Japan. In the fourth century, under the influence of the Chinese judicial system, Japan adopted a system of different punishments for different crimes, including the death penalty. During the Muromachi period, which run from 1337 to 1573, extremely cruel methods of execution were used. Among those were methods were upside down crucifixion, impalement by spear, sawing, and dismemberment with oxen or carts.


In 1871, following a major reform of the penal code, the list of the kind of crimes that were punishable by death was reduced and cruel torture and flogging were abolished. In 1873, the list of crimes punished by execution was further reduced and methods of execution were limited to beheading or hanging.

Presently, the typical stay of prisoners on death row is between five and seven years. For some, however, this period is much longer. A prisoner, Sadamichi Hirasawa, died of natural causes at the age of 95, after being in death row for 32 years. According to Kyodo, there are 132 death row inmates in Japan.

There has been considerable debate in Japan about the death penalty, and the public has overwhelmingly supported it. In the late 1980s, four high-profile acquittals of death-row inmates after retrial shook public confidence on this measure. This case "shook public confidence in the system and profoundly embarrassed the Ministry of Justice, which until then had believed that the execution of an innocent person was all but impossible," stated Charles Lane, a reporter for The Washington Post who studied the Japanese criminal justice system.

However, a government survey in 1999 showed that 79.3 percent of the public supported this measure. At a 2003 trial in Tokyo, a prosecutor presented the court a petition with 76,000 signatures requesting the death sentence on his case. A 2009 government survey showed that 86 percent of the public in Japan supported the death penalty.

In the United States, there have been 1,289 execution since 1976, most of them by lethal injection. In 34 states, the death penalty is legal, and in 16 states it has been abolished. In the U.S., over 130 people have been released from death row after their innocence was proved.

Both in the case of Japan and the U.S., there is the widespread perception that the death penalty can be a deterrent to further crimes. However, according to a 2009 study conducted by Professor Michael Radelet and Tracy Lacock, both at the University of Colorado-Boulder, 88 percent of the country's top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicides.

In addition, 87 percent of leading criminologists think that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. More pointedly, 75 percent of the respondents believe that "debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems."

All European countries except Russia, Belarus and Latvia have abolished capital punishment. According to Amnesty International, 95 countries, including Canada and Australia, have abolished the death penalty, while nine other countries have it reserved only for extraordinary cases of espionage or treason. It is now time for Japan and the U.S. to heed Amnesty International's suggestion and join the more than two-thirds of countries worldwide who have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, and declare a moratorium on executions as a first step toward abolition.

Cesar Chelala, M.D. and Ph.D., a winner of the Overseas Press Club of America award, writes extensively on human rights issues.

ARTICLE END

CORRECTIONS:
- In Russia, the death penalty is still legal, but they are still considered an abolionist country because they "retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes such as murder but can be considered abolitionist in practice in that they have not executed anyone during the past 10 years and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions"

- As of 2012, Latvia abolished capital punishment for ALL crimes.

- According to Amnesty International, the only countries that retain capital punishment for "ordinary" crimes are: Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Chad, China, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia,  Singapore, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad And Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States Of America, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe

Had no idea this article was so inaccurate, y'all. Sorry!

Source: AmnestyIntl




I honestly don't think this was a very persuasive article, but it was still interesting to read. I wish the writer had delved more into the financial burden placed on taxpayers who must pay for people to live on death row for DECADES- it’s another core reason why people are against capital punishment. Also, anyone interested in the  compensation for exonerated prisoners in the US checkout this article and for an update of the latest US state seeking to abolish the death penalty, check this out.

Source: JapanTimes
colette93 14th-Apr-2012 07:08 pm (UTC)
"criminals are a nuisance for society since they only cost money"
I've been noticing this in many comments,but I think it's wrong to set a prize for the human life, like saying they are better off dead than burdening others financially.If you start that way, than you're not far off from what happened in Germany when disabled people were killed, because they were "too expensive" to be taken care off and discribed as just that " a nuisance for society".
of course there is a difference between the two as the one is more than guilty and the other simply innocent, but i think the direction this takes is not right and once again: I'm really really against measuring a human life on how much it will cost to maintan, killer or not, that's a principle....

also describung someone as a "monster" as many have done..... there is a pretty fitting and deep saying i think that goes: "monsters aren't born, but created"
there are no human beings born evil,they are blank like a white page and slowly but gradually coloured by their surroundings and sozial environment that turns them into what they are....they are victims and "losers" of sozialisation...that does not justify what they did nor make the crime any less horrible, but it shows that they are human....

by killing someone,that will be the end. the victims family might be able to accept for example the child's death easier if they feel that justice has been done, but is it really justice? the criminal needs to be punished and kept locked away for the safety of the people,no question...but being confinded in solitude in a dark,small place for a lifetime...isn't that enough? who are we to decide who is to live and who to die?

the most questionable is as to who is the one to execude the death penalty, because the one doing it will automatic turn into a murderer himself...(because death penalty is just revange,nothing else)..i coudn't bear the thaught of having robbed someone's life and i think the one who actually and not only in theory does it without a care can't be right the head as well....

Lastly i would like to remark the rule probably everyone knows: that you only do to others what you would want them to do to you
though obviously the criminals do not keep to it, but by killing them it would mean you will be also killed if ever coming into a similar situation and tough the whole world thinks you should die,will you also think so?
and if we do not keep to this rule because they don't, then what will become of society?

Edited at 2012-04-14 07:09 pm (UTC)
newsvsyamapi 15th-Apr-2012 01:15 am (UTC)
Thanks for such an interesting comment on a extra sensitive issue! I'm somehow chocked by some comments and reactions to this article...

As a lawyer from a European country practicing in the U.S. I often get to hear extreme comments and critics about death penalty
I agree with your stances and would like to add that a number of families who have suffered a great loss do not often feel at peace even after the "assumed criminal" has been executed.

There are a number of alternative solutions to get to "social justice" or help families to move forward even if they are not that popular (restorative justice etc.)

Edited at 2012-04-15 01:15 am (UTC)
lexissexist 15th-Apr-2012 01:12 pm (UTC)
If you found that comment interesting, your firm needs more booze and bullshit sessions ^^

But really, do you have a link to any studies on victim statements before/after execution? There was one done in Illinois in the 90s but I couldn't find it idly searching for it. Because that's probably the best argument against the notion of capital punishment working for victims. Also, I know I would empanel any sentencing committee with those directly affected - because that's who should make decisions.
colette93 15th-Apr-2012 09:09 pm (UTC)
if i understood you right you think what i wrote is a complete mess and your opinion differs greatly from mine,right?
well then, now i got interested in where we differ, so would you tell me where I'm off in your opinion? cause I'm not technically against broadening my mind and by reading about your way of thinking about this i might adapt/change/advance in my way of thinking and get a little different look on thinks, or not...who knows ;P
anyway in short: if you criticize me,please do it in a little longer version than just writing it's bullshit :)

ahh..and it would indeed be really interesting to read about vicitms statements before and after~

Edited at 2012-04-15 09:31 pm (UTC)
lexissexist 16th-Apr-2012 03:09 pm (UTC)
What? I was making a joke about working at law firms. But if you want to make it a joke about working with pretentious blowhards, we can fight. ^^
colette93 16th-Apr-2012 08:00 pm (UTC)
sorry, i think i misunderstood you, or more like didn't get you at all...probably....and i still don't think i completely understand you right now *though i thinks that's propably mostly of my lacking skill in the english language that i fail to get your joke*
i thaught you were refering to my article when you mentioned "bullshit" above, so i concluded from that that you had a problem with what i wrote and so i wanted to know where you think i was "wrong", that's all...

didn't mean to insult or offend you or in any way stat a fight at all... :)
lexissexist 16th-Apr-2012 09:41 pm (UTC)
No worries, I'm rarely serious.
atarashiiyoake 15th-Apr-2012 06:52 pm (UTC)
only do to others what you would want them to do to you

+100000

Many of these comments are so terribly revenge-fuelled. This whole 'blood for blood' mentality scares the hell out of me.
This page was loaded May 25th 2013, 6:18 am GMT.