Public attitudes to the death penalty in Japan


survey, out of the 86% who chose “the death penalty is unavoidable in some cases”, 34% also approved the possibility of future abolition. In this sense, it is possible to argue that retentionists – who favour retention without any possibility of future abolition – only account for 56% of the total respondents. Tis is a large difference from the 86% of “retentionists” cited by the government report (Cabinet Office, 2009).


In addition, the question which measures attitudes towards future abolition also uses unclear language. It asks: “Do you think the death penalty should not be abolished in the future, or should it be abolished if circumstances change in the future?” It is not clear what is meant by circumstantial change. A third of the respondents who chose “abolition when circumstances change” in the 2009 survey could be referring to a number of situations, such as the reduction in crime rates, introduction of life imprisonment without parole, or the revelation of wrongful executions.


Tese questions, which attempt to measure public attitudes to the death penalty, could potentially be influencing the outcome. If questions were phrased in a more objective manner, the results may show a lower support towards the death penalty, which is examined in the sections to follow.


Other supplementary questions


Past government surveys have consistently asked the Japanese public about their perception of the deterrent effect of the death penalty (Cabinet Office, 1956, 1967, 1975, 1980, 1989, 1994, 1999, 2004 & 2009). In the 2009 survey, there were two questions that dealt with this issue. One question asked all respondents if they thought serious crimes would increase if the death penalty was abolished, to which 62 % answered that crimes would increase with only 10% selecting crimes would decrease (Cabinet Office, 2009). While there is no doubt that the majority of respondents consider that the death penalty reduces serious crimes, the quality of this question would have been improved by adding the option “serious crimes would stay the same”. Te other question on deterrence is a sub-question to those who are categorised as retentionist78


where they are offered various reasons for retaining the


death penalty. In this question, “abolishing the death penalty will increase serious crimes” was again one of the popular options chosen by respondents (Cabinet Office, 2009).


Tese results show that the majority of respondents believe the death penalty deters serious crimes. Tis is not borne out by academic social science research. Various studies have found both negative and positive correlations between use of the death penalty, in particular the probability of execution, and the rate of murder. Tere is an increasing academic consensus that proving or disproving deterrence is virtually impossible (for example, Nagin and Pepper, 2012; Dezhbakhsh & Shepherd, 2006; Fagan, 2006; Hood & Hoyle, 2008, pp. 317-333). In the case of Japan, the existence of executions had no positive effect on the murder rate during the moratorium between 1990 and 1994. Indeed the number of recorded murders fell during this period and then went up again when executions resumed in 1994 (Dando, 2000).


Furthermore, the government survey does nothing to inform the public that their perception that the death penalty acts as a deterrent is at best inaccurate and academically contested. Te question has


78 “Retentionists” here refer to those who selected “the death penalty is unavoidable in some cases” in the government survey. 33


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