Editorial: Cease the death penalty, future direction and discussion

November 25, 2007:

The death penalty has slowly changed, little by little, in the world. The United Nations General Assembly third committee (human rights) has adopted the requested resolution of stopping the death penalty system (moratorium) in the UN nations. It is exceptional for all 192 countries to participate in the general meeting for adopting this policy related to the death penalty.

In Japan, regarding the possibility of death penalty without the Minister of Justice’s name, there is opposition from the group who are trying to abolish the death penalty rule. It is a good opportunity to discuss about the death penalty system again. The government hopes to gather opinions from all views and discuss about the future direction of the system.

The Minister of Justice’s suggestion was abrupt. During the interview after Abe’s resignation, the procedure of death penalty was stated as “not a conveyor belt, but the sequence was like a table of random numbers, which could not be understood, and a objective procedure should be considered”, and forced to retreat his remark of “willing to study from now onwards”.

Somehow it was the statement after not reappointing the Minister of Justice. However, this is a matter concerning human life, and it is not to be treated lightly as “conveyor belt” or “table of random numbers”. The Ministry of Justice, which is in charge of human rights, should not treat this matter lightly.

Death penalty requires a “period of serious consideration”, and under the criminal suit law, the order of the Minister of Justice is required. Serious consideration is important. There are previous Justice Ministers who did not state their names in the orders, which is an important judgment. In the beginning, such a necessary task should be prepared during the undertaking of the position.

The general meeting’s resolution points out that “the wrong decision of death penalty is irrevocable”. The resolution is not restricted strongly by law, but it is to the will of the international society, and should not be neglected. The possibility to cease death penalty in Japan still needs serious consideration.

This resolution is the common proposal among the 80 countries in the European Union (EU). Agreement to the resolution is 99%, disagreement 52%, and no votes 33%. Countries with the death penalty system, like Japan, United States and China, are in opposition to the resolution.

According to the international human rights organization, Amnesty International, 90 countries and areas have completely given up the death penalty, and about 11 countries have also done so with the exception of serious cases. There are in total 64 countries and areas, which have death penalties due to conventional crimes, including Japan, United States, China, North Korea and Iraq.

Internationally, the United Nations General Assembly has already adopted the second section of “B” agreement of international human rights, which has stopped death penalty. However, excluding Japan, there are 35 countries involved in this. Increase in the number of countries needs to depend on the future movement.

Countries where the citizens are involved in the criminal judgment, such as European countries, have mostly given up on death penalty. For the citizens, psychological burden compelled by death penalty is less, which may be one of the backgrounds why it is easy for citizens to participate.

In 2009, Japan will have a new system where its citizens can be involved in judgment of major crimes. To carry out the new system smoothly, momentary ceasing of the death penalty is a topic which deserves much consideration.

Consideration of citizen punishment feelings might not be practical with the ceasing of death penalty.  However, if death penalty were not be ended, would it not need serious consideration to think about new establishments for lifetime imprisonment?          

Comments:

Death penalty has always raised much controversial topics all around the world. It might be cruel, but without death penalty, would it be too light a punishment for those who really commit hideous crimes that could not be tolerated? If death penalty is abolished, will it result in a higher rate of serious crimes? In Singapore, where crime is intolerable, the government would not want to risk the probability of serious crimes happening.

If you do not commit crimes and abide by the laws, so why worry about death penalty?

TEO Wee Boon

(Singapore)

APM 4

Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University