Japans death row makes prisoners go insane

[That Guy Ya Know]

As long as they are certainly guilty, which tends to be the way, as Japan likes to keep their conviction rate at 99%, then so what?
Why should criminals be given humane conditions? If I was living in Japan, I know I wouldn't want to be spending much, if any, money on keeping the morally deplorable alive.
End of the day, Tokyo has the lowest crime rate in the world. Does this help keep it so low? Maybe, either way, low crime = success.

Really? Really?

No honestly? You aren't trolling?

Oh thank god for the fact that you are trolling. I actually thought for a second there that you actually believed a 99% conviction rate meant that they always got the right person.

 

[PurpleRain]

It's not like they are expected to "learn from their mistakes" now is it? : )

This sums up everything! The Japanese are showing us clearly how to abuse a ruined system. Torturing the inmates (doomed or not) is not going to do anything in the long or short run. There is no gain, only that they are being stooped to the same level as those imprisoned.

 

[Koeryn]

They shouldn't kill them, they should let scientists do tests on them so they can better understand the effects of isolation on the human mind.

Ooh, good thinking. Why has no one thought of this before? That way they're helping SCIENCE!

 

[SeniorDingDong]

Wait, Japan got still a death row ? And then, they toture the waiting prisoners like in good old empire days ???

You cant belive how surprised I am about both things.

 

[Squarez]

Nawww poor death row inmates aren't being treated properly. They would have a right to complain were these people not some of the most treacherous people on earth.

Although to be honest they shouldn't be kept around for decades, atleast execute them sooner. Saves money and time for the tax payer/prison system/government

What if they're innocent? They usually wait 10-20 years or so before execution, in case new evidence appears, to make sure they're the right person.

I'd like to see the stats on how many of these death sentences are successfully reversed. Though my knowledge on the inner workings of the legal system is sorely lacking, I seriously wonder how many of these appeals are even considered.

Personally I've no problem with the death penalty - after all, rehabilitation only works if the person wants to change, which in this case is unlikely - but if a fair number of appeals turn up new, decriminating evidence, I can't really argue against delaying the process a few years. The time lapse could be lessened, but that's more bureaucratic red tape than any moral dilemma.

Now, if the person is guilty without a doubt, I'm definitely for taking the convicted behind the courtroom and cappin' him or her execution style. It sounds harsh, but compared to years, even decades sitting isolated in a cell just waiting for death, it's infinitely favorable.

For those who are against the death sentence as a principle, though, you're not completely wrong either. The death penalty is a philosophy that seems dated nowadays, especially with most normal, relatively innocent people on enough happy pills to make Keith Richards wobbly...er, more wobbly. I guess it ultimately comes down to how pragmatic a person is in regards to the big picture. Spare the convicted killer for years in the hopes that justice and truth may yet redeem him/her, regardless of expense, or just off the guy who likely won't get his/her appeal and spare everyone the time and money?

If you arrest 100 killers, who's more important: the 99 who are guilty, or the one who's innocent?

The one, who's innocent, whether you agree with the death sentence or not (which I don't) the murder of an innocent is inexcusable (which is the reason the people in death row are there in the first place).

 

[Kedcom]

Amnesty really should get a kick in the nuts. Those cunts deserve to suffer.

You should get a kick in the nuts.

I lived in Japan for 3 years and heard so many stories of the police forcing confessions through intimidation from suspects and framing others. It is a much more common occurence there when compared to many Western nations. I also personally know of at least one miscarriage of justice in which a man in my twon was forced by the police to confess to a crime he didn't commit by badgering him and depriving him of sleep with no legal access for several days. He was released eventually from his sentence on appeal. This kind of thing happens a lot and the police can be way more scary to some timid Japanese who are used to being told what to do than they are in a comparable situation in the US or somewhere to more argumentative Westerners who know their rights better.

I shudder when I ponder how many death row inmates in Japan are innocent, it'll be a lot.

Hope your bloodlust is worth it for people like them. You ****.

 

[That Guy Ya Know]

As long as they are certainly guilty, which tends to be the way, as Japan likes to keep their conviction rate at 99%, then so what?
Why should criminals be given humane conditions? If I was living in Japan, I know I wouldn't want to be spending much, if any, money on keeping the morally deplorable alive.
End of the day, Tokyo has the lowest crime rate in the world. Does this help keep it so low? Maybe, either way, low crime = success.

Really? Really?

No honestly? You aren't trolling?

Oh thank god for the fact that you are trolling. I actually thought for a second there that you actually believed a 99% conviction rate meant that they always got the right person.

Bugger off and grow up. Clearly the sum of your analytical skills is to scream troll.
Japan will only sentence people they are certain committed a crime, hence why the actual amount of trails is relatively low. Unless you would like to show me some source that suggests the justice system of Japan is corrupt.
Come back when you've grown up a little.

Japan is certain people have committed a crime after the person confesses. People tend to confess to anything if you detain them for questioning for long enough without letting them contact anyone. I honestly can't see how anyone can equate that to meaning they always get the right person. Thus I naturally assumed you were trolling, thank you for clarifying that you are not.

 

[saiyaman6798]

If they did something bad enough to get in there, they deserve it. Letting em go nuts before you kill them is probably TO GOOD for them.

 

[Ancientgamer]

As long as they are certainly guilty, which tends to be the way, as Japan likes to keep their conviction rate at 99%, then so what?
Why should criminals be given humane conditions?

Because they're still humans?
Law isn't about revenge, it's about fucking justice. About removing disorderly members from society. Pain, humanity, they're not fucking relative, they're not fucking transitive, and they're not fucking equative to any action a human can do. Even serial killers are humans, and deserveto be treated as such right up until we suffocate them.


The opinions being expressed in this thread are quickly smothering the rat's ass I still gave about people. The "good people".

Wait, because they are humans they are somehow special?
This is the kind of text book liberal argument from people who have never had anything bad happen in their nice, cotton-candy life, or thought about it too deeply.
Last I checked humans could be worse than animals as they know the results of their actions.
Therefore, socially destructive humans shouldn't be treated well, as they knew the motives and potential results of their actions.

If someone has been a destructive member of society, why should they be given anything? "Because they are human" means they are plotting, sick psychopaths who should be given the harshest/cheapest treatment possible until removing them from society, permanently.

Justice is subjective. What isn't is the fact that Japan has an exceptionally low crime rates. Therefore, how can you criticise a system which clearly works?
"Oh dear, I'm giving morally devoid people a bad time"....How is this wrong? Something liberals always forget is that JUSTICE HAS TO BE A DETERRENT. This is really only done by having poor/inhumane conditions e.g. Victorian workhouses.

Plus, less swearing, I think your vocabulary is larger than you are giving it credit for.

Well, first of all, lol at calling me a liberal. I'm more of a fundie conservative than most people around here, I just don't see the point in torturing people who we're already executing just for "well why not".

Anyway, It feels like you're fundamentally missing the point. Some points I suppose are subjective, so I'll at least state my view if not try to convince you.

1. Humans are special to me for personal reasons, I'm a christen, so I probably have a whole different set of beliefs regarding that. But even in the secular sense, the idea that humans are special is the whole basis for the ides of freedom, for the rights of man, for inalienable rights. If humans are only animals, then morals don't matter, then for being morally deficient?

2. You're approching this from entirely the wrong viewpoint.

If someone has been a destructive member of society, why should they be given anything?

What are they being given? What the fuckare they being given? Is it so much to ask that the system doesn't go out of it's way to torture convicts we're killing anyway?

sick psychopaths who should be given the harshest/cheapest treatment possible until removing them from society, permanently

Read the article? What's cheap? what's "privileged" about not beat the living shit out of them for standing up in their closet sized cell? which they're confined to for decades?

Lets stop beating around the bush. The crux of your argument is that if these people have done something making them worthy of death, torture is justified? Correct?

"Oh dear, I'm giving morally devoid people a bad time".

Don't trivialize. This is out and out torture of the first degree. If morals don't matter, why are we torturing them for a lack of it?

I contend that adding torture isn't an "additional little thing" added on top the verdict. But that it rather elevates the punishment to a whole new level. You don't execute shoplifters. You don't torture murderers.


If you can't understand why humans always deserve such very basic rights you're as morally devoid as the people you want to sift through 20 years of pure agony before killing them just because we can. In fact that makes you worse. That's worse than anything they ever did.


There's so many blatant, pedestrian discussion fallacies and cheap tricks in your post I don't have the time to go through them one by one. But please, try to think of this a discussion to reach a conclusion, not an argumentative debate.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Justice is subjective. What isn't is the fact that Japan has an exceptionally low crime rates. Therefore, how can you criticise a system which clearly works?

One wonders whether exceptionally low crime rates come at the expense of state-sanctioned torture of innocent people. A 99% conviction rate doesn't actually say anything about the reliability of trials, it just says how many prosecutions result in convictions. You can achieve a 100% conviction rate by not bothering with trials at all. Is that even better?

 

[theultimateend]

They deserve it?

Assuming they are guilty.

People on Death Row for years in the US get found innocent before they die at least a couple times every 5 years. Which is impressive given that not all many places have a huge stockpile of deathrow inmates.

As it stands. If you kill a killer you are no better than the killer. If it is acceptable for you to do it why is it not acceptable for them.

If we want to have a morality based justice system we cannot act like the barbarians we condemn. Otherwise it is hypocritical and generates the same cognitive dissonance that leads folks to these acts in the first place.

Anyone who says "they deserve it" is either naive, functionally retarded, or just as bad as the folks in jail. If you can condemn someone else to pain and suffering you are no better than those who do it.

 

[The_Prophet]

They deserve it?

No, the death penalty is cruel enough as it is. At the very least they should be put out of there misery soon after the verdict. Anything else is just barbarism.

Why? Why is death penalty for someone who has killed another person cruel?

 

[That Guy Ya Know]

Justice is subjective. What isn't is the fact that Japan has an exceptionally low crime rates. Therefore, how can you criticise a system which clearly works?

One wonders whether exceptionally low crime rates come at the expense of state-sanctioned torture of innocent people. A 99% conviction rate doesn't actually say anything about the reliability of trials, it just says how many prosecutions result in convictions. You can achieve a 100% conviction rate by not bothering with trials at all. Is that even better?

Please show me some evidence, other than speculation, that the Japanese Justice System convicts innocent people, then I may question whether their conviction rate being so high, and crime being so low, is dubious.

Give us evidence enough for us to believe that the Japanese legal system is perfect. They don't care about evidence just confessions and so they obtain confessions and let evidence go hang itself. How are we supposed to get you evidence? I'm not a Japanese detective. And if they are ignoring finding evidence in order to obtain confessions what are you expecting them to have a webage saying "Oh lulz silly us actually all this evidence went entirely against that persons confession. I sure hope no-one involved in an internet debate finds this page."

 

[That Guy Ya Know]

As long as they are certainly guilty, which tends to be the way, as Japan likes to keep their conviction rate at 99%, then so what?
Why should criminals be given humane conditions? If I was living in Japan, I know I wouldn't want to be spending much, if any, money on keeping the morally deplorable alive.
End of the day, Tokyo has the lowest crime rate in the world. Does this help keep it so low? Maybe, either way, low crime = success.

Really? Really?

No honestly? You aren't trolling?

Oh thank god for the fact that you are trolling. I actually thought for a second there that you actually believed a 99% conviction rate meant that they always got the right person.

Bugger off and grow up. Clearly the sum of your analytical skills is to scream troll.
Japan will only sentence people they are certain committed a crime, hence why the actual amount of trails is relatively low. Unless you would like to show me some source that suggests the justice system of Japan is corrupt.
Come back when you've grown up a little.

Japan is certain people have committed a crime after the person confesses. People tend to confess to anything if you detain them for questioning for long enough without letting them contact anyone. I honestly can't see how anyone can equate that to meaning they always get the right person. Thus I naturally assumed you were trolling, thank you for clarifying that you are not.

Article 38 of Japan's Constitution categorically requires that "no person shall be convicted or punished in cases where the only proof against him is his own confession".

And yet still they convict them based purely on confessions, that's why a big fuss was made.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Justice is subjective. What isn't is the fact that Japan has an exceptionally low crime rates. Therefore, how can you criticise a system which clearly works?

One wonders whether exceptionally low crime rates come at the expense of state-sanctioned torture of innocent people. A 99% conviction rate doesn't actually say anything about the reliability of trials, it just says how many prosecutions result in convictions. You can achieve a 100% conviction rate by not bothering with trials at all. Is that even better?

Please show me some evidence, other than speculation, that the Japanese Justice System convicts innocent people, then I may question whether their conviction rate being so high, and crime being so low, is dubious.

My country, the United States of America, has overturned many rape and murder convictions based on DNA evidence processed long after the crimes were committed and the innocent person convicted. The United States is not in any way infamous for its judicial corruption. I mean, you're wrong just by epistemology. Certainty is too steep a requirement to make any conclusion about reality, and that includes whether a crime has been committed and who perpetrated it. Your position is terrifically blase about these problems. It's simply wrongheaded to assume that innocent people aren't convicted by judges acting in good faith. Errors happen.

 

[BaldursBananaSoap]

Waste of tax money. Plus if prisoners are injured to near death then more money goes to their treatement then back to death row to wait and be killed.