Weak value of life leading to abolition of death penalty?
Japan justice minister, Kunio Hatoyama on why Japan does not need to reconsider its death penalty as is being done in the European Union and other areas.
As the Japanese place so much importance on the value of life, it is thought that one should pay with one’s own life for taking the life of another. You see, the Western nations are civilizations based on power and war. So, conversely, things are moving against the death penalty. This is an important point to understand. The so-called civilizations of power and war are the opposite of us. From incipient stages, their conception of the value of life is weaker than the Japanese. Therefore, they are moving toward abolition of the death penalty.
It is important that this discourse on civilizations be understood.
You, sir, do not understand the Japanese principle of “kaizen”, or incremental improvement leading to monumental advances.
Japanese politicians have proven that kaizen can be applied to the cause of stupidity and incoherence. They rival each other, never satisfied, to make increasingly stupid and incoherent remarks, ultimately leading to the insurmountable Japanese lead in stupid and incoherent politicians. But, even with this lead, the Japanese attention to detail and perfection will not allow them to rest - Japanese politicians will continue to strive for any increase in stupidity they can achieve. As hard as we in the West try, it may take a while to catch up.
If the stupidity of politicians made as much profit as Toyota cars, the Japanese bubble never would have ended.
February 10th, 2008 at 8:27 amI see where he’s coming from, though he’s assuming that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to murder and that Japanese society’s morals dictate an eye for an eye. Because life is so precious, he’s saying, a murderer should fully appreciate her actions by receiving them herself. This also, of course, assumes that some life is more precious than other life–the murderer’s life loses value after she has murdered, enough that she can now be killed without hypocrisy.
I don’t think this is an uncommon opinion here in the US…
February 10th, 2008 at 12:56 pmI decided to skim the interview and realized that this was the same minister who suggested that “executions should be carried out automatically without involving the Minister of Justice.” He wishes to retain the death penalty but doesn’t seem to be up to fulfilling his important responsibilities (symbolic though they may be) in real death penalty cases as the Minister of Justice.
As for the argument: “their conception of the value of life is weaker than the Japanese. Therefore, they are moving toward abolition of the death penalty” — does this mean the opposite is true? Facetiously speaking, this could be interpreted to mean that the Chinese must love life most. (That said, some people do in fact “need killing”.)
February 10th, 2008 at 1:43 pmHeather, some opinions are like sausage - better not to know where they came from.
February 10th, 2008 at 6:12 pmAs far as I know the death penalty system has never been a controversial issue among Japanese people. We hear 80% of Japanese support the system.
The system is based on following two theories which actually aren’t proven.
1. Sinful murderer can only be punished by execution.
2. The system can reduce numbers of murder crime.
I am personally not necessarily against abolishing death penalty system. But that won’t happen in Japan at least in near future.
February 10th, 2008 at 7:59 pmI disagree that there is a need/value for having the death penalty. It doesn’t deter crime and can have horrible consequences - at least someone imprisoned wrongly can be freed and given compensation. Money is no use to a dead man/woman!
Though if I’m right Japan doesn’t execute that many people these days so there might not be a pressing need to get rid of it. I would give more time to helping the new “jury” system work. That’s something I’m quite enthusiastic about.
February 10th, 2008 at 10:11 pm“I disagree that there is a need/value for having the death penalty.”
Killing someone is way cheaper than keeping him in prison during decades. And it’s safer since we’re sure he will never be graced/freed later.
This being said, I agree that death sentence should be given only when there can’t be any doubt over a culpability.
February 10th, 2008 at 10:18 pm“Heather, some opinions are like sausage - better not to know where they came from.”
The important in an opinion is not where it came from but what it is about.
Shooting at the mesenger doesn’t change the content of the message.
February 10th, 2008 at 10:21 pm“This being said, I agree that death sentence should be given only when there can’t be any doubt over a culpability.”
There is almost always a doubt, even if someone confesses - you can never be 100% sure of anything. One of the toughest UK Home Secretaries, Michael Howard, was pro-death penalty…. until he became Home Secretary. Then he was strongly against it, after he had first-hand experience of the criminal justice system.
And studies have shown that if you have a system that really, really is careful the extra appeals often cost as much/more than locking someone up.
February 10th, 2008 at 10:22 pm“Michael Howard, was pro-death penalty…. until he became Home Secretary.”
Maybe he simply understood that the current system isn’t good enough at assessing one’s culpability.
It doesn’t mean that we can’t build better systems that can avoid judiciary errors.
February 10th, 2008 at 10:37 pmvittel, what kind of argument is that? “hey it might be inappropriate to have the penalty now because the criminal justice system has too many flaws to guarantee culpability of the guilty party, but one day it might not have those same flaws, and therefore we should keep the death penalty instated until that appointed time when it actually might make sense to have it.”
ok, so apparently hypothetical future improvement is a justification unconnected current concrete action. are you sure you are from france? i though the education system was better than this. before you embarrass yourself with another one of these doozies, familiarize yourself with the concept of logical fallacies.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:37 amI don’t know where you’re from but, in your case, you should familiarize with the concept of avoiding putting you own words into someone else’s mouth.
My first post : “I agree that death sentence should be given only when there can’t be any doubt over a culpability.”
My second post : “It doesn’t mean that we can’t build better systems that can avoid judiciary errors.”
Which means : hey it might be inappropriate to have the penalty now because the criminal justice system has too many flaws to guarantee culpability of the guilty party, but one day it might not have those same flaws, and therefore we should use the death penalty only from the time we find this better system.
Not what you thought I meant.
Anyway, on the other side, we have to admit that the vast majority of prisoners are guilty for real. So, we could considere that the poor guys who are wrongly convicted are in fact the price to pay for a system that is good but not perfect.
Also, why rotting in prison during your whole life would be more humane than being killed?
February 11th, 2008 at 7:04 am“It doesn’t mean that we can’t build better systems that can avoid judiciary errors.”
Unless you can invent a “truth machine” there is no better system. Anyone who understands the law knows that.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:19 amYes, the Chinese show their love of life 8000 times a year! What a tally.Disgraceful.
I wouldn’t say that Japanese value life so greatly. These are the people pressured young men into disentegrating themselves aboard kamikaze aircraft. Their suicides top 30000 annually. The crimes against humanity that they committed during the sensou were unspeakable. Make this kunio-wank witness his handiwork at the gallows and the see if he still thinks it’s ‘number one’.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:39 am