The Death Penalty in Japan


Figure 8: Government survey question Experimental group 16% 30% (n=164) (n=86) 26% (n=143) Control group 16% (n=87)


54% (n=292)


58% (n=312)


■ Death penalty should be abolished under all circumstances ■ Death penalty is unavoidable in some cases ■ I don’t know/difficult to say


Note:Total number of respondents in the experimental group: n=542 Total number of respondents in the control group: n=542


Te findings shown in Figure 8 indicate the poor quality of the government survey question. Te fact that no statistically significant difference was detected between the experimental group and the control group demonstrates clearly that the question is not sensitive enough to capture the differences in opinion which were clearly visible with the other question. As noted, the wide definition of a retentionist (“the death penalty is unavoidable in some cases”) and the narrow definition of an abolitionist (“the death penalty should be abolished under all circumstances”) can be considered to be the reason why the government survey question did not adequately capture the flexibility as well as the less committed respondents’ views in supporting the death penalty. Tis finding carries important implications for death penalty policy. Te results produced by the government survey question should – at best – be interpreted with caution as they are likely to over-represent retentionists.


Tirdly, the survey confirmed the hypothesis that respondents were not informed about the death penalty. As noted in the methodology section, seven information items were presented to respondents in the experimental group, and they were asked to state how much they knew about each item in a four-point Likert scale (ranging from item, 1: “I knew all about it” to 4, “It was new information to me”). Using all seven information items, a new Likert scale was created to measure total knowledge. Te reliability of the scale was measured by Cronbach alpha (.856). Since each item comprised a four-point scale, the total knowledge scale ranged between 7 and 28. Te experimental group had a mean value of 22 in the total knowledge scale, indicating an uninformed group. Figure 9 shows the frequency of the total knowledge scores, with a distribution curve skewed towards high scores.


46


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