The Death Penalty in Japan – Part 1: Recent Executions and Kunio Hatoyama

Welcome to Japan

On December 7^th 2007, the day after I arrived in Japan, the news that three men had been executed was released by the authorities. The men were Seiha Fujima (47), Hiroki Fukawa (42) and Noboru Ikemoto (75).

It surprises many to learn that Japan utilises the death penalty, a practice which is facing growing international condemnation. I think it would surprise them even more to learn of the inhumane treatment of death row inmates, the inherent flaws in the prosecution process and, in spite of all this, the widespread public support capital punishment continues to enjoy here. The following article, which is in three parts, seeks to highlight these issues, to explore the underlying causes of this situation, and asks what might be done about it.

Executions orders in Japan must be signed personally by the Justice Minister. The December 7th executions are the first since Kunio Hatoyama of the ruling Liberal Democrat Party took over that role in August. Early on in his new post he came under fire for an apparent attempt at disassociating his position from this unpleasant task:

“I wonder if there’s a way to automatically proceed with the execution [of death row inmates] without the involvement of the justice minister.”

His comments drew criticism from a variety of sources, including Amnesty International Japan, who stated that:

“Hatoyama’s remarks are a rejection of his responsibility as a minister. He is asking that he be pardoned from any accountability.”

Unusual timing

Nevertheless, Mr. Hatoyama signed these recent orders, and those three men were sent to the gallows. The timing of the order seems a little unusual. It is the norm for executions to take place in a recess of the Diet (the Japanese parliament), so as to avoid any political and public debate on the subject. These, however, were carried out a week before break for the new year. The timing coincided with the progress in the United Nations General Assembly of a resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty. The resolution was passed with a large majority on December 18^th, 104 UN member countries voting for the moratorium, 54 against and 25 abstentions.

The BBC website’s report on this includes the line:

Unusually, the US sided with countries like China and Iran to oppose it.

Is the reporter actually surprised the US voted against this? Or are they referring to the bloc voting that usually occurs at the UN? The report doesn’t mention Japan.

Anyway, according to Mr. Hatoyama this whole moratorium thing is irrelevant. He believes that each country should decide on matters such as these for themselves, based on important considerations such as the prevalent popular opinion. The question begs whether or not he feels this applies to all international discourse on matters of human rights? The following passage from the Asahi Shimbun on this point includes a quote by Koki Abe, a professor of international law at Kanagawa University Law School:

“Japan’s position will not be very convincing if it maximizes the use of resolutions that are to its benefit, but calls those that are not to its benefit ‘meaningless.’” He pointed to efforts made by Japan to pass a U.N. resolution criticizing North Korea’s human rights abuses.

With the Justice Minister’s nonchalant dismissal of the UNGA’s moratorium, perhaps the reasons behind the timing of these executions were closer to home.

Release of names

This was the first time in the modern era that the names of the executed had been released. It has only been since 1998 that the government would even admit that anyone had been executed at all. This reduction of secrecy was unexpected and it might have been felt that it required a Diet statement by Hatoyama. The Ministry of Justice has traditionally been against any reduction in the secrecy of executions and with the continued political dominance of the Afghanistan refuelling debate and a bribery scandal involving the Ministry of Defence, perhaps they felt that this was a good time to bury an unpalatable discussion.

In spite of this, the release of the names caused quite a stir in the Diet, along with speculation that Hatoyama is just looking to keep his name in the headlines. One academic and government adviser, Pema Gyalpo suggested:

“He is making a name for himself by doing something different. He is number two in seniority to be prime minister; he’s frustrated and wants to get his name known. He is playing to the media, and wants to be the topic, even if his position is unpopular.”

The release of the names was well received by certain newspapers, including Yomiuri who commented in an editorial:

“We hope the ministry’s decision to reveal the names of executed inmates will give momentum to debate about how this nation should run its capital punishment system.”

The cynic might suggest that with such a secretive government policy, the papers themselves have some responsibility to initiate this debate. There were apparently calls from victims’ families for this information to be released but Hatoyama has also stated:

“Disclosing their names and details of their crimes is the way to obtain the public’s consent.”

This comment seems a little strange. As has already been seen, Hatoyama is quite willing to pull out the public support card in defence of the death penalty, and so quite why he needs the “public’s consent” could be a pertinent question.

Hatoyama’s views

Or it might not be. Hatoyama seems to have a history of making ill-advised defences of controversial government policies. He is infamous in Japan (at least among foreigners) for his defence of the new legislation requiring all non-Japanese (including long term residents) to submit to fingerprinting and photographing at airports, a supposed anti-terrorist measure.

These policies were denounced as knee-jerk by some and short-sighted by others, pointing out that the most alienating immigration procedures in the world are not exactly seen as welcoming from a country which will probably require a sustained influx of immigrants, due to its ageing population.

In defence of the measures, Hatoyama claimed that a friend of a friend of his was in al-Qaeda. He said that this alleged man had entered the country numerous times on fake passports and was involved in the Bali bombings. He even suggested that he had been pre-warned not to visit Bali. These comments were retracted of course, but the episode does question this particular politician’s honesty and well… suitability for such an important role, one might have thought.

In October 2007, Hatoyama had a rather interesting interview with the Weekly Asahi, covering such topics as the death penalty. It has been translated by Michael H. Fox:

Interviewer: Why should Japan not consider abolition?

Hatoyama: 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.

So, ignoring the misnomer that Western equals abolitionist (the first modern country to abolish the death penalty? Venezuela in 1863), Hatoyama believes that it is the way abolitionist countries are built on “power and war”, and how they don’t value life that is behind their suspension of the death penalty. An interesting premise, but one that is disagreed with by someone quite familiar with Japan’s death penalty.

Sakae Menda was released from prison in 1983 after having spend over three decades on death row. He had been acquitted of his conviction for double homicide, the confession for which was beaten out of him by police. He believes that Japan has problems abolishing the death penalty because:

“Japanese democracy is only 60 years old. The concept of human rights is not ingrained in our history.”

So who is correct? What is the real truth behind Japan’s continued use of the death penalty and the support it has among the population?

Next: The Death Penalty in Japan – Part 2: Criminal Justice and Opposition to Capital Punishment