(Following on from The Death Penalty in Japan Part 2: Criminal Justice and Opposition to Capital Punishment)
Popular opinion
The Japanese government, and in particular the Justice Minister Kunio Hatoyama, justify their position on the death penalty with the widespread support it has among the public. There is an oft-quoted figure that Japan enjoys a pro-death penalty stance of around 81.4%, which has been increasing from a low of 56.9% in 1975.
This statistic comes from a 2005 survey carried out by the government, whose motives and questioning methods could be open to suspicion. At the very least, it can be assumed that they did not give the respondees a quick crash course on death row, miscarriages of justice and other unpalatable topics beforehand. Nevertheless, the figure is the likeliest indicator of the support for the death penalty here.
How strong these feelings are among the population is still open to debate, however. It is pertinent that during the 40 month period of unofficial moratorium in 1989-1993, there was no significant opposition among the public to this stay on executions. This could suggest that it is something that the average person does not often think about, and perhaps demonstrates that while the death penalty is widely supported, it is not as important to the voters as the Ministry of Justice might suggest.
The secrecy inherent in the Japanese criminal justice system, and the death penalty in particular, stifles debate on any serious level. When individual executions are not publicised and subjected to subsequent scrutiny prior to the deed, the situation develops where people do not have the opportunity in their daily lives to consider the basic arguments for and against this process, let alone the possibility that innocent people might be being killed in their name. Is this exactly what the Ministry of Justice want?
It is unknown what the true level of ignorance on the key issues is among the public, and it is unlikely the government will be funding any surveys to find out what effect removing this ignorance might have.
An article by the Japan Times on the poll gives a breakdown of the public’s support:
In answering why they support execution, 54.7 percent said perpetrators of heinous crimes should die to pay for their crimes, followed by 53.3 percent who said the number of heinous crimes would rise if the death penalty was abolished.
A total of 60.3 percent said they believe the death penalty system will further deter crimes, and 45 percent cited the dangers of criminals repeatedly committing crimes without such a system in place.
This seems interesting to me. If I have read it right, it suggests that only 44.5% of all people say the criminals should die because of their crimes. The other figures are variations on the deterrence argument. Any argument that the death penalty works as an effective deterrent, apart from on those executed, is completely undermined by its secrecy here. However, the perception of a deterrent can remain when the lack of knowledge surrounding the whole subject is widespread.
The news media’s role
In such a situation, I would suggest that it is somewhat the media’s responsibility to question the government more closely on these matters. However, the newspaper press is famed for its conservative discourse on sensitive matters, as this article from the New York Times in 2000 demonstrates:
“Newspapers here don’t write lies, but they avoid dealing with uncomfortable truths,” said Tatsuya Iwase, author of “The Reason Newspapers are not Interesting,” a 1999 book. “Japan has the hardware of the Western press, but there is no software. The inside is empty.”
Mr. Iwase said Japanese newspapers have little more than a formulaic recognition of the freedom of speech and “disregard the readers’ right to know.” The public, he said, would eagerly welcome a new newspaper that carried feistier reporting and better analysis, but the system, from the government to the advertising powers, would do everything to prevent this.
Thus we are left with the current situation, where the sort of investigative articles into detention centre conditions, which might be getting the public’s attention, are noticeably lacking. Television news seems to be no better. It mostly comes across as lacking in quality and with what appears to be a sensationalist, scaremongering attitude to crime and justice. While I am no staunch defender of the mainstream British TV news output, I find it compares quite well to FOX News et al. in the States, hence making the following quote, originally from the Yomiuri, a little worrying:
The quality and quantity of information American TV viewers receive watching a one-hour news commentary program must be incomparably superior to what their Japanese counterparts get watching a broadcast of similar length.
Hisahiko Okazaki, former ambassador and currently research fellow at the Yomirui Research Institute, slamming the quality of Japanese news and commentary programs, which he says churn out gibberish.
Victim-centred policy
The article from the Yomiuri that I quoted in Part 1, expressing their hope that the release of the recently executed men’s names will lead to an increased debate on the death penalty, has now disappeared from their servers. I see this as not particularly helpful in regards to open debate.
The deference by the Ministry of Justice to the wishes of the victim’s families in the naming matter is just one of a number of signs that those families, and the victims, will become a more important part of the justice system. According to the 2005 poll on the death penalty, there would probably be a strong public backing for this:
Regarding crime victims, 70.6 percent said they believe the rights of victims are not respected during criminal investigations or trials, while 15.9 percent said they are respected.
This article from Inter Press Service, in June last year, highlights the criticism being made of a current debate in the Diet on whether or not to allow victims’ families to address the judge in murder charges:
“The new proposal is clearly aimed at appeasing victims rather than fostering legal justice. I fear such a move, if passed, will turn the spotlight on the emotional aspect of a murder trial and work against the accused through harsher sentencing,” Kei Itoh, a human rights lawyer, told IPS.
The danger of these discussions in a judicial system which is already biased against the defendant should be apparent. If the system becomes more transparent and accountable, then the public perception of this might change. The release of the names must be seen as positive in this respect.
New jury system
The massive support the death penalty holds in this country, along with an apparent lack of interest in the issues, indicates a lack of available information and debate. This problem is becoming increasingly urgent, as in 2009 the courts will implement a jury system in Japan for the first time since 1943. Widespread knowledge regarding the current confession process and the treatment of death row inmates needs to be disseminated, before the jurors find themselves deciding on defendants’ fates.
The decision for this jury system has not exactly been greeted with great enthusiasm by the public as shown in this article from the New York Times. There are worries that it is unsuited to the Japanese mindset and that it will simply act to cover up the other failings in the judicial system:
In Hitachiota, a town that is a two-hour ride from Tokyo and is surrounded by rice paddies, a local theater group decided to put on a play that would dramatize the jury experience. Finding nothing in Japanese, the group’s leader, Fusako Kimura, 73, chose “12 Angry Men.”
Ms. Kimura strongly supports the new system. “But, really, I wondered, can Japanese really express what they believe in,” she said. “Can they really express their opinions?”
“To this day, we value harmony,” she said, and, referring to a haiku by Basho, Japan’s greatest poet, she added, “In Japan, to not speak is considered a virtue.”
Lenient sentencing
It is not just the death penalty which is largely oblique to the Japanese public. The whole of the criminal justice system, including its reliance on “confessions” has an air of mystery to the average person.
Japan’s entry to the Oscar’s Foreign Film category this year was “Soredemo Boku wa Yattenai” – roughly translated as “I just didn’t do it”. The plot is based on a true story of a man falsely accused of molestation, by a schoolgirl on a train. This type of crime is sadly common in Japan, and has led to the introduction a few years ago of women-only commuter carriages.
The man in the film declares his innocence but faces an uphill struggle against the justice system and finally manages to get his name cleared four years later. It is usual in his situation to just accept guilt, whether truthfully or not, and get away with a fine or a suspended sentence
This situation has proved neither helpful to to victims, by not providing a suitable deterrent, nor at holding the accused’s rights in any sort of regard. This is an example of why, despite the continuation of the death penalty, Japan is notorious for its lenient punishments for crimes ranging from rape to ivory smuggling.
The following is a quote from an article in the International Herald Tribune regarding the film. On the one hand it is another demonstration of forced confessions and police maltreatment, but on the other it shows an example of this lenient sentencing:
In Toyama Prefecture, the police acknowledged early this year that a taxi driver who served almost three years in prison for rape and attempted rape in 2002 was actually innocent, after they found the real culprit. The driver said he was browbeaten into affixing his fingerprint to a confession drawn up by the police after three days of interrogation.
It seems to me that this sentencing pattern could be part of the reason behind the 70.6% of people thinking victims’ rights are not respected.
Popular culture informing the debate
The director of “Soredemo Boku wa Yattenai” is Masayuki Suo, maker of “Shall we dance?” (1996). According to this interview with the Japan Times, upon learning the back-story of the film, he was amazed to discover that the Japanese Criminal Justice system puts the burden of proof on the person declaring their innocence:
“As a Japanese citizen, I was very angry to find that such injustice exists in this society. But even though I lived in Japan, I didn’t know this, and I think many others don’t know about it, either,” Suo said. “And having recognized this, I couldn’t just go on with life as if I didn’t know anything about it.”
Four years of intensive research led to a deep understanding of many issues surrounding the court system, he said, adding he will be making more movies on the subject.
It seems that, for a lot of people in Japan, this might be the closest they will come to learning about the negative side of their justice system. Is there somehow a requirement for this sort of pop-culture expose? Would a similar film detailing a death row inmate’s life and death be effective in informing that particular debate?
There are enough tragic stories out there which would be suitable.
One is that of Iwao Hakamada, a boxer who was convicted of murder in 1968 and who is still languishing on death row today, at the age of 71. Having apparently lost his mind from spending most of the last 40 years in a windowless cell, his story could put a human face to the situation on death row. There is also the factor that he is probably innocent, his confession likely to have been tortured out of him…
A more difficult prospect for a film-maker (and the audience), would be a film similar to “Dead Man Walking”, where the audience are left in no doubt as to the character’s guilt. Perhaps the story of Toshihiko Hasegawa, mentioned in Part 2, would fit the requirements. I would say that this is the sort of film that has the real potential to stimulate debate here, and would ultimately be more rewarding. Nevertheless, it is more likely that people would to want to portray the injustice of the “innocent victims” situation first and foremost.
Discourse required
Whether Suo’s film will have the desired effect of educating the public on the criminal justice system cannot be known. However, even if making more films wouldn’t necessarily lead to the abolition of the death penalty, it is surely worth trying as it would probably at least contribute to public interest on the issue.
If this interest is combined with more thorough research into the strength of people’s feelings, and more transparency in the courts and on death row, perhaps there is hope.
This hope would be that that both Hatoyama and Menda are wrong in their view that abolishing the death penalty is not possible in Japan. The secrecy which has contributed to its rise in support since 1975 is now beginning to be chipped away at. During this crucial period of change in the justice system, there is the chance for debate. If this chance is taken, and the right arguments are made, by film-makers, journalists, politicians and lawyers, there is also the chance that the public might be willing to listen.
–
Further information and reading
Japan Death Penalty Information Center http://www.jdpic.org/
Japan Federation of Bar Associations http://www.nichibenren.or.jp/en/
Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/adpan
Asia Death Penalty Blog http://asiadeathpenalty.blogspot.com/
–
Some films on the death penalty in Japan
“Koshikei” (Death By Hanging) (1968), a film by Nagisa Oshima, director of “Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence”.
“13 Kaidan” (13 Steps) (2003), about a prison guard who tries to help a death row inmate whom he believes to be innocent.
“Juninin no yasashii nihonjin” (12 Gentle Japanese) (1991), a reinterpretation of “12 Angry Men”.
I’ve discussed the death penalty with my advanced eikaiwa class (all middle-class educated females in their 50’s). It was rather a depressing experience.
They were unanimously in favour of the death penalty and were actually shocked that I wasn’t. Upon delving deeper, it became clear that their arguments were based almost entirely on revenge for the heinous crime. The concepts of ‘rehabiliation of the offender’ and ‘incarceration for public safety’ were completely new to them.
Eventually, as a compromise they said that they would support abolition of the death sentence as long as the offender was guaranteed to be locked up for the rest of his natural life. It didn’t occur to them that this amounts to pretty much the same thing! Sigh.
PS: I told you I’d read your blog eventually!