The Death Penalty in Japan
• Possibility of miscarriages of justice in death penalty cases • Execution process • Information disclosure concerning the death penalty • Trends in murder rates • Possibility of parole for life prisoners
Te third study used both quantitative and qualitative methods, referred to as deliberative consultation in this chapter, to measure the role of deliberation in support for retention.86
Participants were
assembled to learn about the Japanese death penalty system, discuss and exchange opinions on the issue, answer pre- and post-consultation surveys, and take part in a follow-up interview. Te study was also designed to measure how people understand and interpret new information.
Te sample consisted of 50 Japanese participants, 25 males and 25 females, aged between 20 and 58 living in the Tokyo metropolitan area.87
Tese participants were drawn from a panel of people
registered with a Tokyo-based market research company (different from the company used for the first and second surveys).88
Te resulting sample was a stratified random sample drawn from the
panel based on their sex, age, and attitudes to the death penalty. Te selection of participants by death penalty attitudes was roughly based on the results from the preliminary survey, where retentionists comprised the majority and abolitionists the minority. Tis uneven distribution of attitudes was used to create a “mini Japanese society”, rather than create what one may find in a “debating contest” with equal numbers of retentionists and abolitionists. Te resulting sample was divided into four discussion groups. At least two abolitionists were allocated to each discussion group to promote a lively discussion amongst participants.
Each group discussion consisted of 12 or 13 participants in a small classroom led by professional moderators.89
Participants took part in two discussion sessions, one in the morning and one in the
afternoon, with the expert session in between. Te expert session was conducted in the lecture hall with all participants in one room. Te two guest speakers were invited to give a short speech and debate their positions on the death penalty. Te guest speakers were: a journalist (Mr Seiji Fujii) who was a retentionist and a lawyer (Mr Makoto Iwai) who was an abolitionist. Tere was also time allocated for participants to engage in a dialogue with the experts. Tey did this by asking them questions which were prepared during group discussions.
Findings from the first survey
A different question from that in the government survey was used (see Figure 6). Te first survey offers five positions, dividing the retentionist and abolitionist options into two levels of commitment: “should definitely be kept [or abolished]” and “should probably be kept [or abolished]”.
86
Masato Kimura from Takachiho University and Ms Tomoko Maeshima from the Japanese Ministry of Justice 87
88
updates its information twice a year 89
Te deliberative consultation was organised by four researchers. It was led by Dr Mai Sato, and Dr Takeshi Honjo from Hitotsubashi University, Mr. Te Tokyo metropolitan area (“Itto sanken”) refers to Tokyo, Kanagawa, Chiba and Saitama
Te market research company was called IRC (
http://www.i-rc.co.jp/index.html). Te company holds approximately 75,000 people on its panel and Four moderators were hired from a market research company, NStyle (
http://www.nstyle.co.jp)
42
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