resolution. Not only have the number of executions fallen since they peaked at 15 in 2008 and become more erratic year by year as Ministers of Justice have changed, but a more open discussion of the death penalty and its mode of enforcement has emerged. Tis includes the country’s obligations under the ICCPR, the UN Safeguards and in response to the decisions and ruling made by the UN Human Rights Committee, and by judgments of supreme and constitutional courts in other parts of the world.
Tus, this report appears at a propitious time. It has been carried out by experts on human rights law and standards and their review of the obligations facing Japan – and the extent to which they are acknowledged and enforced in the country – will prove to be of great value to those in Japan who are engaged in the debate.
Te second part of the report deals with the justification commonly put forward by the Japanese government for retaining the death penalty – namely, that so large is the majority of the Japanese population in favour of capital punishment that a democratic government cannot ignore public opinion without endangering public confidence in and support for the criminal law. Tis argument is based on the government’s own survey of opinion and beliefs. Dr Mai Sato demonstrates, on the basis of her own exceptionally well-conducted public opinion research, that the government’s interpretation of its survey – that it reliably reflects the views of the public as a whole – is seriously flawed. Moreover, her findings suggest that the depth of opposition to abolition of the death penalty is neither as deep nor as unalterable as the government claims. Given more information and greater transparency about how the death penalty system works in practice, and some valid evidence based on academically credible empirical research on whether or not the rate of executions has any deterrent effect on the rate of murder, a truer reflection of the Japanese public’s support for the death penalty would emerge. It would be a better policy for the government to lead public opinion in this way, so that it can feel confident in joining the large majority of developed democracies that have permanently banned capital punishment for all crimes in all circumstances. All the evidence suggests that once the death penalty is abolished, the majority of a new generation growing up without it comes to regard capital punishment as just one more cruelty of the past.
Taken together, the evidence presented in this report suggests that unless and until Japan can meet the universally agreed standards to which it should be committed by treaty and its membership of the United Nations, the death penalty should not be enforced. After studying this subject in detail for the last quarter of a century, I have come to the conclusion that no system of capital punishment has or can be devised that does not inevitably, and however administered, violate human rights: specifically, the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life and the right not to be subjected to a cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment. So, while improvements to make the administration of the death penalty in Japan as fair and humane as possible need to be implemented swiftly, the only solution that will truly safeguard prisoners from violation of their fundamental rights is complete abolition of capital punishment.
v
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