Japans death row makes prisoners go insane

[Booze Zombie]

My solution to the criminally insane: Make a huge island for them all, let them have their own illegal world away from us.

Well, most of it would be away from us.

 

[Computer-Noob]

Its death row...why are human rights activists defending people who might have breached, assuming they are murderers?

 

[SultanP]

What kind of insane? I'm really bothered by that kind of information. There are lots of different ways to be insane, I'd really like it specified, some of them are harmless, some aren't.

 

[shwnbob]

No human being deserves that not even inmates in jail.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Go back to supporting OJ or whatever you do in your spare time.
Of course nothing is full proof, but with less than 150 people on death row, and a low crime rate, go and figure out the actual chance of an innocent person getting sentenced to death. It's not as if the only damn punishment in Japan for a crime is death row.

It doesn't matter. No legal sytem is perfect, that's a fact. Therefore no legal system can be sure of having caught the right person. THEREFORE there is NO EXCUSING the death penalty.

Then of course there's the japanese being pretty lacking in trials and preforming arbitrary verdicts, but I guess that's "beside the point".

If you ever get charged with a crime in Japan, don't expect justice...

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

If I ever went to Japan, I wouldn't commit a crime, let alone one which could get me the death penalty.

I wouldn't either, but that doesn't really matter. Just ask young black guy having the misfortune to live in a crimeridden neighborhood (but being otherwise a law abiding citizen) and you'll see for yourself that "not having commited a crime" is no guarantee of keeping you out of being arrested and possibly imprisoned. No police system or legal system can guarantee that. (none in existence anyway)

Then we can consider the fact that nations lacking a "case fucking closed, let's move on and never look back!"-stand point who actually permit re-trials when new evidence or methods of establishing evidence arise and who thinks trials are important in order to straightening the events revolving the crime out, have shown us that many people do get wrongfully accused and imprisoned.

Compare that to Japan's ridiculusly high conviction rate and really low number of trials actually taking place, only the most naive and retarded idiot wouldn't sense that something is amiss. No legal system or police force is THAT good.

So... Not commiting crime, is hardly a foolproof method of keeping yourself out of jail. That's just how it is. It might increase the chance of keeping you out of jail, but policemen are still human, and you can still stumble into the wrong place at the wrong time...

 

[Zefar]

Personally I just think people who get on death row should get shot right away.

Why? Well I just don't see a point in keeping them alive and have them waste our money.

As for this. I honestly don't care. They knew fully well what they did and they deserve this in some way.

People are wrongly convicted so keeping them alive incase you're wrong seems a good enough reason to me.

They are the minority so it'd be doing more good than evil.

There will always be evil people but if you keep letting them out it isn't gonna make things better. Most criminals too re do their crime and most of the time it's on the very same day they are released.

Where is your source for your statement that "most" criminals repeat their crime on release day? I'm calling BS on that one.
(Seeing as we're discussing the death penalty) Most killers only ever kill once, serial killers are few and far between. Under the right circumstances nearly everyone could kill someone. Doesn't make you a serial killer.

The reason people are released on licence is to monitor their behaviour after release. Plenty of people complete their licence without reoffending.

This comes from various things.
TV shows
Research pages on how often criminals repeat their crime.
And in more places.

This information comes from like who are in control of prisons and such. But ok I don't know if I can trust them or not but I take the chance of trusting them now. Also criminals seems to think quite a bit different when you ask for their opinion.


If people murder someone for a reason they should be put to death. If it was an accident and that they can prove it then it's not a murder. There is no reason why they should keep living.

So if they kill someone for a reason they know what they did and should be killed for it.

 

[Drakulla]

If you kill someone and get thrown in jail, you have no rights.

 

[Chipperz]

If you kill someone and get thrown in jail, you have no rights.

And if you don't kill someone and get thrown in jail, you're an acceptible loss?

 

[bjj hero]

Personally I just think people who get on death row should get shot right away.

Why? Well I just don't see a point in keeping them alive and have them waste our money.

As for this. I honestly don't care. They knew fully well what they did and they deserve this in some way.

People are wrongly convicted so keeping them alive incase you're wrong seems a good enough reason to me.

They are the minority so it'd be doing more good than evil.

I wouldn't argue executing someone who is guilty of a serious crime as good or evil. It's the punishment chosen by (some) societies. Executing the innocent is evil. It's cold blooded murder.

There will always be evil people but if you keep letting them out it isn't gonna make things better. Most criminals too re do their crime and most of the time it's on the very same day they are released.

Where is your source for your statement that "most" criminals repeat their crime on release day? I'm calling BS on that one.
(Seeing as we're discussing the death penalty) Most killers only ever kill once, serial killers are few and far between. Under the right circumstances nearly everyone could kill someone. Doesn't make you a serial killer.

The reason people are released on licence is to monitor their behaviour after release. Plenty of people complete their licence without reoffending.

This comes from various things.
TV shows
Research pages on how often criminals repeat their crime.
And in more places.

This information comes from like who are in control of prisons and such. But ok I don't know if I can trust them or not but I take the chance of trusting them now. Also criminals seems to think quite a bit different when you ask for their opinion.


If people murder someone for a reason they should be put to death. If it was an accident and that they can prove it then it's not a murder. There is no reason why they should keep living.

So if they kill someone for a reason they know what they did and should be killed for it.

Please don't reference TV. FOX news maybe? More places isn't the best either. I do wonder how many criminals you have canvased to decide they think differently. You have probably met more criminals than you know. Most dont have "criminal" tattooed on them. As I said before, lots of people complete their licences without reoffending. Others reoffend and are dealt with, others start displaying risky behaviour and are returned to prison before reoffending.

Thats completely different than:

Most criminals too re do their crime and most of the time it's on the very same day they are released

 

[vfaulkon]

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).

I could make a long, somewhat convoluted argument about the long-term ramifications of delaying the 'removal' of the guilty 99, but I doubt I'd win that fight.

However, I will say this. And be honest with yourself here: if you read in the news that someone who was accused and convicted of murder even one year ago, let alone five or ten, sent in an appeal and was acquitted, what do you think the ratio would be between people saying "Justice prevails!" and "They let that fuckin' murderer loose? Ugh!"

If you want to talk about morality, let's discuss the quality of life of the one innocent person who was wrongfully accused. Specifically, someone accused of murder who's spent ten years in prison quite likely thinking regularly on how he was innocent but no one gives a fuck. Even assuming that such conditions wouldn't actually turn him into an actual criminal, his reputation is completely trashed. It's hard enough to land a job with a single count of petty theft against you, let alone murder. Explaining those missing years of your past is gonna be tricky to any future partners you find. Not to mention the disillusionment of justice and freedom that person would need considerable therapy to overcome.

That one innocent soul wrongfully convicted? He may beg for mercy when he's first sent in, but even if he ever gets out, he'd probably be suppressing the urge to eat his own gun.

I'm certainly not against taking the moral high ground, but the reality of the situation is too grim and tragic for such shining ideals to be anything more than an ultimately unobtainable goal for the legal system to strive for.

 

[vfaulkon]

If you kill someone and get thrown in jail, you have no rights.

And if you don't kill someone and get thrown in jail, you're an acceptible loss?

I highly doubt that so many people get falsely accused and convicted of murder, especially in places where the penalty is death, that it's a genuine crisis. That luxury of taking the multiple years it would take to be absolutely, positively, 100% sure that the guy really is guilty is quickly being displaced as an option. Prisons are filling, costs are rising, and until I see otherwise the turn-around rate for Death Row inmates is virtually non-existant. At some point, something's gonna have to give, and I really doubt anyone's going to be thrilled with any viable solution to deal with prisoner 'overflow'.

Implementing the death sentence quickly after the case is settled will encourage both sides to be really damn sure about their argument before they present it, and if not, the main problem is much bigger than the death penalty. It'll also strongly discourage people from committing such an act (those that can be discouraged, anyway). As long as the legal system does their job properly and the crimes which warrant death are considered very, very carefully, everything will work out.

 

[MercenaryCanary]

All I have to say is this thread has given me the best idea for a story ever.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The 'ridiculously' high conviction rate is because the Japanese Law system only likes to pursue cases in which they are certain of getting a conviction.

Your evidence for this? As I said before, you could bump that up to 100% by foregoing trials altogether. "Getting a conviction" is not the same thing as "proving guilt." So you need some evidence to be making this claim. From 1943 until only very, very recently, there haven't been jury trials in Japan. That's kind of important.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

Yeah, but my mistake is leaving my soda on the hood roof of my car, or swearing infront of my grandmother.

NOT killing somebody.
I think you need a better understanding of REAL LIFE.

Did you just ignore the other stuff he wrote?

As for killing somebody, you could definetly do that. All men and women are potential killers, it's just a matter of incentive. Some people take to killing rather swiftly. Others need to be pushed harder and in different ways. But anyone can kill, even by mistake...

I believe you quoted the wrong person sir. I never wrote that.

 

[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).

I could make a long, somewhat convoluted argument about the long-term ramifications of delaying the 'removal' of the guilty 99, but I doubt I'd win that fight.

However, I will say this. And be honest with yourself here: if you read in the news that someone who was accused and convicted of murder even one year ago, let alone five or ten, sent in an appeal and was acquitted, what do you think the ratio would be between people saying "Justice prevails!" and "They let that fuckin' murderer loose? Ugh!"

If you want to talk about morality, let's discuss the quality of life of the one innocent person who was wrongfully accused. Specifically, someone accused of murder who's spent ten years in prison quite likely thinking regularly on how he was innocent but no one gives a fuck. Even assuming that such conditions wouldn't actually turn him into an actual criminal, his reputation is completely trashed. It's hard enough to land a job with a single count of petty theft against you, let alone murder. Explaining those missing years of your past is gonna be tricky to any future partners you find. Not to mention the disillusionment of justice and freedom that person would need considerable therapy to overcome.

That one innocent soul wrongfully convicted? He may beg for mercy when he's first sent in, but even if he ever gets out, he'd probably be suppressing the urge to eat his own gun.

I'm certainly not against taking the moral high ground, but the reality of the situation is too grim and tragic for such shining ideals to be anything more than an ultimately unobtainable goal for the legal system to strive for.

I agree with everything you said but, I don't know what your point is.

That you disagree with the death penalty?

You suggest they should just kill the innocent person anyway?

Please explain.

 

[Woem]

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.

I agree. I'm not for the death penalty but if that's their penalty, they should get it quickly. Don't let them wait for 40 years because that's just insane. You might as well have given the life sentence, then they don't have to wait for their death in this way.