PDA

View Full Version : Japan and the Death Penalty



Conley
09-23-2011, 06:54 PM
They don't mess around:

Probably the biggest difference between the death penalty in Japan and the death penalty in the U.S. is that the entire process in Japan is shrouded in secrecy. In the U.S., a death row inmate like Mumia Abu-Jamal can send messages from his cell in Pennsylvania to rallies of his supporters in Europe. But in Japan, death-row inmates are held in solitary confinement, visits limited to a bare minimum of family members and defense counsel. No press is allowed, ever. Indeed, it took a group of anti-death penalty members of the Diet five years to negotiate a visit to the Tokyo Detention Center gallows--not to see an actual execution, but just to see the place, which was, of course, built with money appropriated by the Diet. When the Ministry of Justice finally granted them access in 2003, it was the first such visit by non-Ministry personnel in three decades. The lawmakers were not permitted to take photographs.

Whereas American law requires the state publicly to announce an execution date well in advance, Japanese prisoners find out on the morning of their executions that it is their turn to be hanged. In other words, each of them lives for many years never quite knowing when death will come. And, of course, executions themselves are closed to the press and public. Until 1998, they were not even officially announced after the fact, except in a brief section of the Supreme Court's annual report; nowadays, the Ministry of Justice reports immediately that an execution has been held, though the actual name of the prisoner comes out unofficially, through leaks to the press.

http://www.japansociety.org/a_secret_theater

Mister D
09-23-2011, 06:56 PM
At first thought, I'm not sure what's more humane. Knowing in advance or informing them that morning.

Conley
09-23-2011, 06:57 PM
At first thought, I'm not sure what's more humane. Knowing in advance or informing them that morning.


I was going to say I would want to know, but then I thought if I had the chance to know when I was going to die (outside of prison) I'm not sure I'd take it. But the idea of waking up every morning thinking it very well could be your last sounds awful. Of course in Japan I doubt they stay on Death Row for as long before execution. It wouldn't be fifteen, twenty years like it can be here.

Conley
09-23-2011, 06:58 PM
in before Mumia reference 8)

Mister D
09-23-2011, 08:01 PM
At first thought, I'm not sure what's more humane. Knowing in advance or informing them that morning.


I was going to say I would want to know, but then I thought if I had the chance to know when I was going to die (outside of prison) I'm not sure I'd take it. But the idea of waking up every morning thinking it very well could be your last sounds awful. Of course in Japan I doubt they stay on Death Row for as long before execution. It wouldn't be fifteen, twenty years like it can be here.


I've never heard of anything like that before. It's so different than the way we do things. Yeah, I'd imagine the wheels of justice, as it were, turn a little faster there.

MMC
09-24-2011, 08:49 AM
At first thought, I'm not sure what's more humane. Knowing in advance or informing them that morning.


I was going to say I would want to know, but then I thought if I had the chance to know when I was going to die (outside of prison) I'm not sure I'd take it. But the idea of waking up every morning thinking it very well could be your last sounds awful. Of course in Japan I doubt they stay on Death Row for as long before execution. It wouldn't be fifteen, twenty years like it can be here.


I've never heard of anything like that before. It's so different than the way we do things. Yeah, I'd imagine the wheels of justice, as it were, turn a little faster there.


If one is sentenced to life or die.....then it is on them to either accept it or not. Should they accept it? Even if they did break the law? IMO it is those who have been inflicted that have the cause of righteousness on their side. If they choose to be merciful then that is on them. The state should not have the right to intercede and make the call. The state should not have the right to proceed if mercy is given. By those whom are affected.

Conley
09-24-2011, 09:04 AM
That is an interesting idea, but when there are multiple victims it would be hard to determine. If just one out of several wanted to go through with the penalty, or if it were by majority. In the old days this sounds like a good practice but today with lawyers it would make things even more tangled I think.

MMC
09-24-2011, 11:53 AM
That is an interesting idea, but when there are multiple victims it would be hard to determine. If just one out of several wanted to go through with the penalty, or if it were by majority. In the old days this sounds like a good practice but today with lawyers it would make things even more tangled I think.


How so? Even if there are mulitple victims. The affront are to those involved personally. There is no reason for the State or Government to be involved. Also with mulitple victims. even if some do grant mercy. Others will not. The call of the righteous still stands. But at least the state then could not interfere. Involve themselves into the mix either. If there is no crime against the State. No affront nor affliction to the state then there is no buisness for the state to bring any sort of so called justice. Justice replaced righteousness. When Law and Order was brought to the foreground. IMO.

Conley
09-24-2011, 12:08 PM
That is an interesting idea, but when there are multiple victims it would be hard to determine. If just one out of several wanted to go through with the penalty, or if it were by majority. In the old days this sounds like a good practice but today with lawyers it would make things even more tangled I think.


How so? Even if there are mulitple victims. The affront are to those involved personally. There is no reason for the State or Government to be involved. Also with mulitple victims. even if some do grant mercy. Others will not. The call of the righteous still stands. But at least the state then could not interfere. Involve themselves into the mix either. If there is no crime against the State. No affront nor affliction to the state then there is no buisness for the state to bring any sort of so called justice. Justice replaced righteousness. When Law and Order was brought to the foreground. IMO.


I mean how do you decide which victim is most worthy? Say a man murders another man...the wife of the victim wants mercy, and the son wants death. How do you resolve it?

MMC
09-24-2011, 12:17 PM
That is an interesting idea, but when there are multiple victims it would be hard to determine. If just one out of several wanted to go through with the penalty, or if it were by majority. In the old days this sounds like a good practice but today with lawyers it would make things even more tangled I think.


How so? Even if there are mulitple victims. The affront are to those involved personally. There is no reason for the State or Government to be involved. Also with mulitple victims. even if some do grant mercy. Others will not. The call of the righteous still stands. But at least the state then could not interfere. Involve themselves into the mix either. If there is no crime against the State. No affront nor affliction to the state then there is no buisness for the state to bring any sort of so called justice. Justice replaced righteousness. When Law and Order was brought to the foreground. IMO.


I mean how do you decide which victim is most worthy? Say a man murders another man...the wife of the victim wants mercy, and the son wants death. How do you resolve it?


The Son is not the vitims mate. In such a case the mate would have sole decision. Considering it is the mates other half that made them complete. The Son Would only Decide if the Mate was killed too. Quite simple really. It's all the laws and lawyers who have complicated matters.

Conley
09-24-2011, 12:19 PM
Well, what if they were separated (but not divorced). Or say it was a widow who was murdered and so the decision was left to each of her two boys. It could get complicated but I suppose you could let a judge decide in such an instance.

MMC
09-24-2011, 12:28 PM
Well, what if they were separated (but not divorced). Or say it was a widow who was murdered and so the decision was left to each of her two boys. It could get complicated but I suppose you could let a judge decide in such an instance.


First Born son decides......which that would be righteous. That path of righteousness is what should be followed for all or any involved. If all play out the righteous path. Then the final act will be righteous no matter what. Separated but not divorced still leaves that one as the others mate. If not the call goes to the bloodline.

Conley
09-24-2011, 12:31 PM
Well, what if they were separated (but not divorced). Or say it was a widow who was murdered and so the decision was left to each of her two boys. It could get complicated but I suppose you could let a judge decide in such an instance.


First Born son decides......which that would be righteous. That path of righteousness is what should be followed for all or any involved. If all play out the righteous path. Then the final act will be righteous no matter what. Separated but not divorced still leaves that one as the others mate. If not the call goes to the bloodline.


What is the two sons are identical twins born by C-section?

>:D

Conley
09-24-2011, 12:32 PM
If the victim of the murderer has no blood relative or spouse, does the murderer get to walk free?

MMC
09-24-2011, 01:16 PM
Well, what if they were separated (but not divorced). Or say it was a widow who was murdered and so the decision was left to each of her two boys. It could get complicated but I suppose you could let a judge decide in such an instance.


First Born son decides......which that would be righteous. That path of righteousness is what should be followed for all or any involved. If all play out the righteous path. Then the final act will be righteous no matter what. Separated but not divorced still leaves that one as the others mate. If not the call goes to the bloodline.


What is the two sons are identical twins born by C-section?

>:D


First one removed.....

Conley
09-24-2011, 01:19 PM
If the victim of the murderer has no blood relative or spouse, does the murderer get to walk free?


What about this?

Or if the whole family is murdered?

Mister D
09-24-2011, 01:33 PM
Well, what if they were separated (but not divorced). Or say it was a widow who was murdered and so the decision was left to each of her two boys. It could get complicated but I suppose you could let a judge decide in such an instance.


First Born son decides......which that would be righteous. That path of righteousness is what should be followed for all or any involved. If all play out the righteous path. Then the final act will be righteous no matter what. Separated but not divorced still leaves that one as the others mate. If not the call goes to the bloodline.


What is the two sons are identical twins born by C-section?

>:D


:D

Interesting idea, MMC.

Conley
09-24-2011, 01:35 PM
There are some cases where the victim can decide to not press charges and law enforcement drops it.

I'm not sure where the line is (obviously before murder)

Mister D
09-24-2011, 01:39 PM
There are some cases where the victim can decide to not press charges and law enforcement drops it.

I'm not sure where the line is (obviously before murder)


It probably can't be a felony

MMC
09-24-2011, 01:58 PM
If the victim of the murderer has no blood relative or spouse, does the murderer get to walk free?


What about this?

Or if the whole family is murdered?


The unrighteous act may have been witnessed which would allow that one to take that path. Then again, perhaps the unrighteous will get away for the moment. Until it is met with an even more righteous ending.