Public attitudes to the death penalty in Japan


consideration for offenders or their families.98


What was observed was participants viewing offenders


as “others” and victims as one of “us”, where the “deviant other” must be “socialized, rehabilitated, cured until he or she is like ‘us’” (Young, 1999, p. 5) or in the death penalty context, simply executed.


On the other hand, it was also clear that many – if not all – of the participants did not have a proper understanding of criminal trials. Tey were unclear about the role of victims in sentencing, and did not understand the difference between a “defendant” and an “offender”. Analysis of participants’ statements in group discussions and follow-up interviews showed they were likely to think of criminal courts as a battleground for fights between “defendants” and “victims”. Participants also found the phrase “offenders’ rights” puzzling and felt that “victims’ rights” were infringed in the current criminal justice system. One participant stated that “it is strange why defendants get a lawyer but victims do not get one”. Participants see criminal courts as places where “victims should win justice”, and “justice” is served when the defendant is found guilty (i.e., sentenced to death). For participants, courts were not places for testing evidence about guilt or innocence, for example, or places where judges made normative declarations about the crime that had been committed.


Conclusion


Two conclusions stand out from Part Two of this report. First, the results of the government survey, which show very high levels of support for capital punishment in Japan, should be interpreted with extreme caution. Second, the concept of public ‘support’ for capital punishment is multifaceted. Te findings of the three studies discussed above demonstrate that a considerable proportion of the Japanese public do not have strong opinions about the death penalty, and that even those who express strong support for capital punishment modify their views in response to new information. Tus, what separates retentionists from abolitionists in Japan is more nuanced and subtle than commonly supposed. Japan’s government needs to look beyond the superficial representations of public opinion derived from its own surveys. Using survey evidence as a social barometer is essential for informing government of public preferences in a democratic setting, but if Japan’s government and judiciary want to continue relying on ‘public opinion’ to justify retention, their evidence must be sound. Similarly, if the purported ‘deterrent effect’ of capital punishment continues to be employed as justification for this form of state killing, there should be an independent academic inquiry into the issue, rather than continued reliance on unquestioned beliefs and public perceptions.


98


Only one participant in the discussions asked her group to put themselves in the offenders’ families’ point of view. 51


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