Public attitudes to the death penalty in Japan


Te quantitative analyses presented above should not be interpreted as conclusive. Te sample size was relatively small (n=50) – especially in comparison to the experimental survey that produced statistically significant results. Nonetheless, two points are noteworthy. Te majority of participants did not change their opinion on the death penalty after deliberation. Tose who changed did not all move in one direction – for example, towards abolition – but in both directions in almost equal proportions. Te following section further analyses the effect of deliberation on death penalty attitudes qualitatively. Statements from the follow-up interviews were used to look beyond seemingly fixed views on the death penalty.


In a follow-up interview, a participant who remained a definite abolitionist (“should definitely be abolished” selected in both pre- and post-surveys) stated that “the application of the death penalty is a repeat of murder committed by the state”.97


to a post-survey question which asked if he would be able to pass a death sentence if he was selected as a lay-judge. Although this response may seem surprising coming from someone who is strongly and consistently opposed to the death penalty, it was explained during the follow-up interview that “faced with a heinous crime, I [he] may be influenced by emotion and wish for the defendant to be sentenced to death”. While he maintained that “the death penalty is not a matter of emotion” and stuck to his principle that “even the state should not be given the power to take away one’s life”, he admitted there were several occasions during the group discussions when he was tempted to accept the death penalty due to “sympathy towards victims’ families”.


A participant who remained a definite retentionist stated in the follow-up interview that he had become even more convinced of his position after deliberation. He gave as his reason that he had learnt that prisoners serving life imprisonment could be released on parole, and he felt that the death penalty should not be abolished under these circumstances. While his commitment to the death penalty seems solid, he stated in the same interview that he would support future abolition if life imprisonment without parole were introduced. For him, the most important goal of punishment for murder was for “the offender to reflect on the gravity of the offence committed in prison for life”. In other words, his support for the death penalty was not itself principled, but reflected the absence of his preferred option.


A participant who remained undecided (by selecting “cannot say” in both surveys) displayed perhaps the most conflicting views that swung between retention and abolition during the follow-up interview. From a retentionist’s perspective, she gave “victims’ families” as a reason to keep the death penalty, but expressed her reservation about this by stating: “What the victims’ families want may be the offender to be punished by the most severe punishment under law rather than by death”. On a similar note, she stated the importance of “making the offender remorseful for the offence committed by living and not resorting to another death by execution”. However, she also contradicted her earlier view by expressing her doubts as to the likelihood of “atonement without sacrificing their own life”. Te same participant also added that information regarding “the anguish of prison officers who are ordered to carry out executions” was new to her and had moved her to lean towards abolition.


Te three examples above focused on those who did not change their views. Te next example is a participant who changed from “cannot say” in the pre-survey to “should probably be kept” in the


97


All quotes by participants have been edited, to correct grammar mistakes and to delete interjections, without changing the content. Translation is as faithful as possible


49


However, the same participant answered “I don’t know”


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