The Death Penalty in Japan


Introduction


Part Two of this report shows that existing survey evidence about Japanese public attitudes to the death penalty cannot be taken at face value. Tis conclusion is based on two main findings. First, we assess the quality of Japanese government surveys of public opinion toward capital punishment and find them to be seriously flawed. Second, we provide additional survey evidence concerning Japanese public attitudes in order to contextualise the gaps identified in the government survey – and to question the conclusions that have been drawn from it.


The Japanese government survey


Te government survey has been conducted since 1956, approximately every five years. Te most recent government survey, conducted in 2009, found that 86% of respondents favoured retention (Cabinet Office, 2009). In Japan, the results of the government survey have been taken as long- standing proof of public support, and have provided the reason put forward by the government for not abolishing the death penalty in Japan.


Question wording


Te government survey has been criticised for phrasing questions in a way that is leading, and likely to increase support for the death penalty (Kikuta, 2004; Japan Federation of Bar Associations, 2002). 2009 government survey questions:


Which of the following opinions concerning the death penalty do you agree with? 1. Te death penalty should be abolished under all circumstances 2. Te death penalty is unavoidable in some cases 3. Don’t know/difficult to say (emphasis added)


Te second option “the death penalty is unavoidable in some cases” is more likely to gain votes than the first option “death penalty should be abolished under all circumstances”. Tis is because the first option is designed to measure a narrow definition of abolitionist by using the term “under all circumstances” and the second option to measure a wide definition of retentionist by using the term “unavoidable in some cases”. In other words, abolitionists are defined as those who are strongly committed to abolition, but retentionists include a wider range of positions from very committed retentionists to reluctant retentionists.


Tis point is further strengthened by the fact that those who support future abolition are categorised as retentionist under the government survey (Nagai, 2005, para. 3). Using the figures from the 2009


32


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68