The Death Penalty in Japan
been used for over 50 years in all past sweeps of government surveys, but nothing has been done to address the public belief in deterrence. Tis is not to say that the government survey should not ask members of the public whether they believe that executions have a stronger deterrent effect on the murder rate than any alternative punishment. It is a perfectly sensible question to ask if the purpose is to ask about their perception – rather than their informed judgment. However, the public responses to the government survey have been used as evidence to determine policy – in this case to justify retention. In this regard, providing policy-driving-respondents with accurate information or making efforts to correct their misconception is crucial.
Aside from the issue of the perception of deterrence, the government survey asks respondents about their reasons for preferring retention or abolition, with questions whose wording could also be improved. In the 2009 survey, retentionists and abolitionists were provided with a multiple choice of options for supporting their position.
Reasons for abolition and retention Options provided for retentionists79
• Tose who committed serious crimes should compensate by giving their lives
• Te death penalty is necessary when considering the feelings of victims and victims’ families
• Abolishing the death penalty will increase serious crimes • Tose who have committed serious crimes may repeat similar crimes if kept alive
Options provided for abolitionists80
• Killing a human being is inhumane and barbaric, even if it is a legal punishment • Even the state cannot justify killing a human being • Miscarriages of justice cannot be reversed after execution takes place • Even those who commit serious crimes have the potential to be rehabilitated • Serious crimes will not increase even if the death penalty is abolished • Offenders should be kept alive to pay for their crimes
Te options for those who agreed that the death penalty is ‘unavoidable in some cases’ – the retentionists – are all reasons that “positively” choose the death penalty over other sentences. Tere are no options that allow respondents to express their “reluctant” choice of the death penalty: such as “there is no life imprisonment without parole” – implying that the death penalty is accepted due to the lack of a preferred alternative sentence; or “the death penalty is the most severe punishment under the current Japanese criminal law” – meaning that what is important is for serious offenders to receive the most severe punishment, rather than necessarily the death penalty itself. If these passive options were to be presented, the results may show a substantial number of retentionists supporting the death penalty by acceptance and not by preference. In sum, while the government survey provides a wide definition of retentionist which includes enthusiastic retentionists to reluctant retentionists, the reasons offered to these ‘retentionists’ to explain why they support the death penalty are one sided, because they focus on committed retentionists.
79 80
“Retentionists” here refer to those who selected “death penalty is unavoidable in some cases” in the government survey “Abolitionists” here refer to those who selected “death penalty should be abolished without conditions” in the government survey
34
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