That’s not automatically a bad number. Japan has a ridiculously low incarceration rate (63 per 100,000 compared to 748 in the US and 96 in France) so it doesn’t seem as though they randomly pull people from the street and then convict them with near certainty. They might throw out many cases with less than airtight evidence.
Actually, that's not exactly true. The japanese system relies heavily on confession, and without the presence of lawyers. They are sometimes denied food, toilet usage, etc... for days. Several people sentenced to death following confession were acquited in the 80ies...
Also, the way death row works in Japan is particularly horrible: as in the US, people may stay there decades before being killed, but they only know it the day they are killed, and their family is only notified after their death.
I would also note that the incarceration rate is not ridiculously low - if you look at developed countries, the outlier are the US, not Japan. I suspect the French figure to be typical in western Europe, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration
That indeed seems to be horrible. I just wanted to suggest that the number alone is not all that meaningful. (My comment was a bit too assertive for that purpose. I slightly reworded it.) You are certainly right about the US being the outlier with respect to incarceration rates, but even compared to Europe Japan’s numbers are low.
All fair points, and you could make many, many more. So could the other side. In fact, that would make for a great article, because people like you and me care deeply about whether innocent people are being killed arbitrarily. A fair, factual debate about how often that likely occurs would make for a great read.
Wait a second, isn't that what we just read? No, no it's not. If it were, the text I quoted could've been the title because, whether or not you're right, 99% is NINETY-NINE PERCENT and it deserves a goddamn explanation. That much we can agree on.
No, we didn't just read an article about the death penalty. We just read an article about the best way to abolish it. That article takes as a given that the death penalty is immoral and that it should be abolished regardless of the opinions of the nation's citizens. Whether you personally agree or disagree with those presumptions is irrelevant. It's irrelevant because, as you're well aware, plenty of people don't and you don't just write them off as stupid or unimportant. They're citizens just like you are.
To write the article we just read is to believe that their opinions should be ignored. The New York Times is telling you and me, "Anyone who thinks the death penalty is in any way acceptable is a hick or a redneck or a retard-- you know, the same people who DON'T read The New York Times. Not YOU though. YOUR opinion matters. We can tell because YOU read The New York Times. YOU think it's immoral, which is why YOU want to read an article about how to get it the hell out of here, opposition be damned. Isn't that right?"
Even Fox Fucking News doesn't report on, say, the gay marriage debate in this manner. They may be heavily biased to one side, but at least they concede there's a debate to be had.
Other side? I didn’t write that comment because I’m on any particular side. I’m actually all for abolishing the death penalty but that doesn’t really matter. I think this is fine article about a Japanise minister’s campaign to abolish the death penalty, padded with some background info.
The law (and law enforcement) system is very hard to understand for a foreigner used to western systems - maybe one of the most weird thing.
One of thee most surprising thing is how little respect law enforcement people get, and their total lack of authority whatsoever. The first time I was arrested with my gf (who is Japanese), I was truly shocked to see here talking back to the policeman, especially since she was clearly in the wrong (not stopping at a stop sign by car). I told here later that it was the most sure way to spend some time unpleasant time at least for the night in France (or worse in the US), and plead her to never ever do that. I also saw once a guy in plain day, in the center of Osaka, circumventing a policeman who asked him to stop, and running away by car.
I think this is linked to the most defining aspect of Japanese society: the perpetual social obligations to each other, and the lack of individuality. My interpretation is that law in Japan is mostly "unused", because people restrain themselves so much in general for every aspect of everyday life. As such people whose job is to force this on people besides social conventions are not well regarded. I would love to get a better understanding of this aspect of Japanese society.
Concerning low rate of crimes, I think this is partly an illusion. True, issues related to physical aggression are much less likely than in any other country I know, and the country is very safe. But there is also a covering of things which are considered as crimes in western countries. Things such as rape, sexual harassment are often covered up, I believe - certainly, I have seen more inappropriate behavior in Japan in 6 years than all my life otherwise. Corruption is also prevalent, the comparison of number of white collar crimes with other countries would be interesting, for example. Finally, many activities related to child pornography is disturbingly tolerated in Japan.
Good luck changing public opinion. I think that route is pretty hopeless, the abolitions of the death penalty in Europe were not preceded by big changes of public opinion. That expert panel seems like a good idea, though.
There is no evidence which would make for good, rational reasons to keep the death penalty around, what keeps the public convinced is a strong moral conviction that certain crimes are so heinous that they should be punished with death. That seems almost like a human universal to me. If you want to abolish the death penalty you can’t use public opinion, you have to circumvent it.
The quoted lawyer from the human rights organization who presumably has some experience fighting the death penalty seems to be very aware of that (as are her US counterparts, by the way): The “death penalty should not be enforced by a majority opinion.”
There is no evidence which would make for good, rational reasons to keep the death penalty
According to you. If one murderer gets out and commits further crime, that's enough evidence for most people. If that further crime is murder, no additional discussion is required.
I really don’t want this to turn into a discussion about criminology or, goodness forbid, whether the death penalty is right or wrong. Those discussions are always very predicable. I think the history of the abolishment of the death penalty and current efforts to abolish the death penalty are much more interesting.
I made that assertion (no rational reasons for the death penalty [+]) only to show why it might be easy to convince technocratic politicians why they should abolish the death penalty. That’s easy. I wouldn’t put much hope in grass roots movements which want to abolish the death penalty. Those run on public opinion and moral convictions which are much harder to change.
[+] “Rational” might be misnomer, I’m not sure about that. What I mean is that there is no evidence which suggests that the death penalty leads to better deterrence or reduces cost. You will have a hard time finding criminologists who don’t agree with that.
Umm, no. You said that there was "no rational reasons for the death penalty" because it was a straw man argument that mischaracterizes those you disagree with in a way that appeals to you. Period.
I am also not arguing about the death penalty. But there is rationality on both sides. Not just your side.
“Rational” really might be a misnomer. It wasn’t meant to be an insult. “Moral convictions” are fine reasons.
It is, of course, imaginable that there would be “rational” (again, might be the wrong word) reasons for the death penalty. I can imagine a universe where the death penalty increases deterrence, reduces cost and where wrongful convictions are exceedingly rare. I would imagine that it would be very easy to convince technocrats to introduce the death penalty in that universe [+]. All I asserted was that it seems to be consensus among criminologist that we are not in that universe.
[+] My own strong moral conviction – which, in this imagined universe wouldn’t be, in my parlance, “rational” – would be to not introduce the death penalty, all those reasons be damned. I can certainly sympathize with those wanting to keep the death penalty in the real universe for moral reasons.
I’m nevertheless not really sure whether I really would oppose the death penalty in the imagined universe because I also happen to believe that policies with regard to at least certain human freedoms (I would include “life” and “opinion”) have to have some sort of useful effect on the world beyond making me happy (i.e. being congruent with my moral convictions).
It's evidence, but I don't think it necessarily counts for a good, rational reason.
If "most people" are concerned about protecting innocent lives then a rational extension of this line of thinking contraindicates the death penalty given the risk of executing an innocent man.
It's great that some of these issues are actually being discussed, now that the LDP is out of power. I have to wonder how much longer the current government will remain, though.
By the way, the 6 PM news in Tokyo carried these pictures on Friday. Unfortunately, can't tell you what they said.
How it took 7 paragraphs to get to that, I have no idea.