Road to Abolishing Death Penalty

The Article 36 of Constitution of Japan says that the infliction of torture by any public officer and cruel punishment are absolutely forbidden. In spite of that, criminal law in Japan approves death penalty as the supreme punishment for crimes. Japan Federation of Bar Association resolved that they would consider introduction of lifetime imprisonment for life to achieve abolishment of death penalty by 2020. Behind the scene, there is a sense of embarrassment as one of the developed countries, most of which removed that cruel punishment from the laws.

The resolution was passed in a meeting for protecting human rights on Friday. It was the first time for JFBA to decide abolishment of death penalty. It is likely that the resolution will be included official policy of JFBA, which may affect public discussion over death penalty.

The resolution was titled as Declaration for Reform of Punishment System Including Abolishment of Death Penalty. “Death penalty that deprives life is a significant and serious infringement on human rights by state power,” the resolution defined nature of the punishment. Reminding of Hakamada Case, in which a prisoner with fixed sentence for death was released lacking sufficient evidence in 2014, the resolution warned that wrong decision could not be compensated, once death penalty would be executed.

There is an international trend of abolishing death penalty in its background. According Amnesty International, 102 countries or regions abolished death penalty from their legislation by the end of last year. The countries that had execution last year amounts to 25 including Japan. Among 35 countries in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, only Japan, United States and South Korea have death penalty in their law system.

The resolution of JFBA referred to the necessity to follow that international trend. They targeted 2020 as the time for abolishing death penalty, the year when United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice would be held in Japan.

JFBA passed the resolution with opposition from some lawyers who were involved in activities for helping sufferers from brutal crime. To persuade those who hope to maintain death penalty for deterring felonious crimes, the resolution regarded support for the sufferers as “important issue” and proposed mental support or increasing financial support. But, sharp opposition over death penalty has not completely been diminished.

As seen in some current crimes in which the criminal is ready to death without running away, deterrence of death penalty has actually been declined. There is a discussion for introducing heavier rule on parole for a prisoner with unlimited imprisonment, extending from 10 years to 20 or 25. Anyway, the key point is whether a number of conservative lawmakers in the Diet can understand the discussion over human rights.