This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
The Death Penalty in Japan


post-survey. Tis change in opinion may be regarded as a sign of a statement that “something” has happened during deliberation that changed her mind towards retention by one point of the scale, but the follow-up interview showed a similar state of mind that shaped the three previous participants. Asked about her shift from “cannot say” to “should probably be kept”, she stated that she was “still hesitating over her decision” but nonetheless defended her now qualified retentionist position by referring to “respect for the victims’ families”. Tat said, towards the end of the interview, she also stated that the reason she changed her position to “should probably be kept” in the post-survey was because she came to the conclusion that “the death penalty should be kept as a symbol of the most severe punishment for the general public, but there should be a stop to executions and an introduction of life imprisonment without parole”. Tis statement showed her distaste for execution but also demonstrated her – questionable – belief that the existence of the death penalty under law should act as general deterrence for future offenders.


Te findings presented from the follow-up interviews also echoed the impressions drawn by the moderators from the group discussions that they led. One of the moderators stated that with more information and exposure to different views, participants became less certain of their original position chosen in the pre-survey, and were unable by the second group discussion to defend themselves in definite terms. A clear example can be found in a participant’s doubt expressed in the discussion group as to why the Japanese people support the death penalty, and his suggestion that it may simply be “because we have it, we want it”. Another moderator stated that the atmosphere of group discussions changed from one of “conflict” in the first discussion to one of “neutralised” – i.e., “your view is different from mine but I can see what you mean”.


Qualitative analysis from the follow-up interviews illustrated a complex and often contradictory set of opinions held by participants torn between abolition and retention – even though these two positions represent different ends of the spectrum. Conflicting and nuanced attitudes which were not present before deliberation can be attributed to the provision of information and dialogue. Attitudes which embrace both retentionist and abolitionist perspectives can be interpreted as signs of tolerance and understanding of other opinions. However, this is not to totally discredit the quantitative analysis presented above: answers filled in for the post-survey after a day-long deliberation should be taken seriously. Tat said, qualitative data certainly paint a fuller picture of what went on behind participants’ decisions to stick to – or change – their opinion. It is fair to say that what may have been an easier task, to choose from a five-point scale death penalty position in the pre-survey, became a more complex and ambivalent task in the post-survey, making the five positions offered to participants no longer an adequate index of opinions.


An argument which repeatedly surfaced throughout the deliberation process – in group discussions, the expert session and follow-up interviews – was the need to retain the death penalty for the sake of victims’ families. Tis argument was not only used by retentionists but was accepted as a valid argument by some abolitionists. Te most popular reason given for supporting the death penalty in both pre- and post-surveys was the “feelings of the victims’ families”.


In group discussions, there were no pre-organised topics that participants were required to discuss. Under this arrangement, participants spent a considerable amount of time discussing the lack of attention paid to victims’ families in death penalty cases. Transcripts from group discussions clearly demonstrate that participants were focused on the victims’ families’ perspective while dismissing


50


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