You are proceeding to a page containing mature content. Is this OK?

check Yes, show me everything
close No, hide anything sensitive

Minister: “Criminals Die Anyway, So Why Execute Them?”


Japan’s Minister of Justice has developed a novel argument against the death penalty – criminals die anyway, so why kill them?

In public comments Satsuki Eda, a former lawyer and Japan’s current Justice Minister, described his innovative new argument against the death penalty:

The death penalty has many flaws.

Humans eventually die. Why should we rush to execute them?

He went on to indicate he would be “studying” the future application of the death penalty.

The death penalty in Japan is generally only sought against serial killers, and the executions themselves (conducted by hanging) must be personally authorised by the minister, with an average of 5 executions a year and a 7 year wait on death row.

Online his arguments were ridiculed:

“If people die anyway, what’s the problem with murdering them?”

“Murder’s hardly a crime if they’re just going die sometime, isn’t it?”

“A schoolboy-level opinion…”

“The victim’s bereaved families can hardly rest in peace if they die before the killer.”

“Death from natural causes and the death penalty are completely different things. What an idiot.”

“If people are just going to die anyway we might as well execute them now!”

“I’d expect this sort of talk from one of those guys with mohicans in Fist of the North Star, not from our Minister of Justice…”

“What’s the point of a law abiding country if everyone is just going to die anyway?”

“How can he say something like this? What he thinks is his own business, but surely he can realise what the reaction will be if he says this sort of thing in that office?”

“If you oppose the death penalty, change the law already.”

“I oppose the death penalty, but I can’t agree with his statement. In fact, I wish he’d shut up as his infantile statements are actually damaging the position of abolitionists.”

“Robber: ‘It’ll be used anyway, so I might as well steal it.'”

“Irrespective of whether the death penalty is just or not, for an idiot who can only think of these pathetically shallow objections to become Japan’s Minister of Justic is truly despair inducing.”

Leave a Comment


  • This is fairly deep, albeit surreal, social commentary. Those that dismiss it should take a long look at their shameful selves.

    “The victims won’t rest if they die first…”
    Do they have the fantasy that people don’t die, if they aren’t killed? No. They die anyways. His statement rebuffs this, and many other shallow reasons for the death penalty.

    • The death penalty is not necessary and misses that a LOT of people who murder and mass murder especially ARE mentally ill when they do their crimes.

      I’d much rather have them get proper mental health treatment and be released back into society (yes, if they are not a danger anymore, released back into society) at a later date, so they can contribute to society.

  • This discussion leads nowhere. You are either pro or con, there’s no middle-ground.

    I’m personally against the death penalty. There are just too many flaws. Contrary to popular belief, only the fewest culprits are ever 100% guilty. There are many innocents in death row. Many wouldn’t even get such a sentence in other countries, even the USA.

  • Let me try one. Not sure if this sounds right, but “Criminals (ones that are not serving life sentence or multiple sentences that equates more than the period that the person can serve) will be released after serving their sentences anyway, so why arrest them?”

  • Humans aren’t perfect. Therefore, our law system isn’t perfect. All we can hope for is to do the best we can with what we have available. We’ll get things wrong sometimes, yes, but that shouldn’t stop us from aiming for what benefits society as a whole. Sometimes that means putting people away for a while. Sometimes it means putting people away for the rest of their lives. Yet, sometimes it may even mean that we have to end someone’s life. The punishment should always fit the crime.

    This may seem like the whole Hammurabi “Eye for an Eye” law that everyone seems so keen to speak of, but only to a certain extent. For example, murder is not just killing another human being, but to do so with malicious intent. If we send a criminal to the chair with the intent to kill him, is it done simply because we hate him and wish him to die? It’s true that the family of a victim (or victims) might hate the criminal, but it is not they who put him on Death Row. It is the state, and the laws it has put in place, that do so. And then, only after he is deemed guilty through trial.

    Yes, there may be a truly sad case where we put an innocent man to death, only to find out in later years that he was so. This goes back to my first statement, where we as humans aren’t perfect. Is it excusable? No, and I will never say so, but even in later years we will never know absolutely everything about a crime committed. So I’ll say this one last thing to close:

    The death penalty is a punishment, and like all punishments, it is both a tool of the law and a tool of prevention. To use it is to set an example. And, like all tools, whether it is wrong or right depends solely upon its use. The death penalty is neither good nor evil in and of itself, but it should NEVER be taken lightly.

  • Well to be honest, they;d be saving money this way. Why? The cost of the thoroughness of the trail procedures, and investigations for criminals to go on death row greatly outweighs the cash needed to house them in prison for many years.

    Just trying to save a few bucks, I guess. Though, I’d say having a prisoner rot in a tiny, tiny cell in a maximum security prison would be a fate worse than death…

  • criminals die anyway, so why kill them?–
    –because that’s the traditional Japanese way of dealing with law breakers (and that’s how they tested the sharpness of katanas,,,criminals where disposable back then)

  • Japan : Such a clean, progressive country…

    where raping is free and not even illegal, anime is part of the daily life culture – w/ tentacles and loli, and the imbecile+dumb people only gets the privilege to be on the government.

    seriously, i am not trying to troll, but geez, this stereotypical look at Japan is really making it more worst and true.

  • Well the Japanese main government is more sensible that the local governments of Japan. The major difference from their speeches are, the local governments are more assertive and have balls (but disregard the will of the people), and the national government listens more to the people (but is really too spineless to do or say anything that may cause upheaval). There you have it in a nutshell. Now which is the lesser evil? I’m not all for death penalty myself but this statement isn’t smart all. Think of how much tax money it takes to keep people in prison? This Prime Minister is a bit weak against pressure. One, he didn’t cowered away from handling the Chinese fishing boat incident and two he sat on his thumbs while he let Ishihara go on a rampage in Tokyo. It makes me wonder does guy really want to do his job? Seems like he doesn’t want to make any kind of direct decision at all.

  • This is an example of an enlightened legal argument. The death penalty is nothing more than assisted suicide, you’re offering a beneficial service of shortening the life of someone who will spend the rest of their life behind bars. The real penalty is a life behind bars not death.

  • What I think Mr. Satsuki Eda is trying to convey is that if why give them the satisfication of a quick death when you can prolong there sentence and make them suffer until they die. Here’s my solution for criminals with a death sentence or a huge crime. Take away all social interaction and place them in a padded soundproof white cell with no windows. Have their food delivered, with only a plastic spoon, to their cell and make no interaction with them whatsoever during that time. Disallow any visitors. I believe the only reason why prison is tolerable is that you can interact with other people and you have something that you can do (i.e. labor or recreation time). Strip them of those two things and they’ll probably go crazy with the boredom. However, human rights activists will probably disagree with these methods and lobby for more rights for murderers and the like, so it is highly unlikely that this punishment will see the light of day, which is sort of a good thing since I, myself, would never want to be put in this sort of punishment either.

  • Hey, thats the first good idea i’ve heard from japan to this topic. Livetime prison sentence is better than the death one – and if you know after 15 years or so, that another one have committed the crime the sentence is revearsable – unlike as the death sentence.

  • Most criminal in my country use prison as their second school.
    learning many thing from fellow criminal.
    once their graduate from prison(release) most of them return to their “normal life” with better knowledge to avoid cop and prison.

    Just let them rotting away in prison may not enough.

  • You are all idiots. Comparing his logic to any other statement of it happening anyway is a complete logical fallacy. There are people who never have sex. There is food that is never eaten. Death is certain. Speculating on anything else happening in terms of doing something to someone that causes pain is a foolish venture when it comes to the law and life. The time perception argument is, of course, an entirely different matter.

    Lex talionis was considered an outdated social justice system forever ago, and did not mean eye for an eye anyway. It could mean an eye for what I consider equal to an eye, i.e. money.

    You talk of cost of criminals in terms of execution saving money… make slaves of these people and use their labor force to save the state money. Don’t feed them if they refuse to work. Tons of different justice systems can be created that would be much more effective.

  • Why since October 2010 the Japanese government have been screwing up shit and make themselves look like total tards. Stick with the death penalty, Since they say its only used on people who are serial killers. Or just lock em up and make em suffer.

  • Ever see the movie Gamer? why not do something like that but in the end kill the winner anyways? it would be entertaining and solve the prison overflow if they are killing each other for there lives.

    • Couldn’t have said it better in one sentence. If you kill a killer you are not doing any justice in revenge. There will always be murderers but people forget how they came to be murderers. Although it seems a lot of users here believe in an “eye for an eye” mentality, and everyone is down-voting everyones inane comments, ironic. Two wrongs do not make a right and no one has the right to take the life of another.

      • If they raped and killed your wife, killed your kids inluding a two year old and set your house on fire to try and cover up what they had done I wonder if you’d be singing a different tune? By the way, that really happened not too far from where I live last year. 🙁

        • Of course he probably would. That’s why we have juries and don’t let victims decide the fate of convicted criminals, because giving in to our impulses to hurt people isn’t justice, it’s just revenge.

  • Ehh…too much leniency..either that, or people out there are trying to be too open minded.

    Death in general sounds bad, both on religious and moral level. But then again..serial killers got neither of those.
    I’d say, sometimes it is necessary to employ evil means to even out even more evil issue.

    To look at things from more practical level.
    Feeding a life-long sentenced criminal does cost a considerable amount. They also take space in the prison, not to’s not like they are locked in bare concrete cells. So certain commodities are deployed for them as well.
    And generally all of it requires a daily routine of staff to maintain. (reference to people saying that sentence chambers cost too)
    All of it requires upkeep. And someone have to pay for it, in this case, citizen.

    Would You feel like paying your tax to grow “human plant” (they just exist), that took the life of others, or committed different bad deeds before getting nailed and sentenced?

    • You are not a very empathetic person, are you? Your perceptions towards criminals are plainly cruel, and makes the cold, pessimistic assumption that people cannot change for the better. Death is not evil, in any way “religious or moral”, but a natural process that should come due when its due – with a finality. There is no going back after taking a person’s life.

      The rhetorical question you posed is an example of a false dichotomy meant to deceive, even it was not your intention. If your are genuinely interested in cutting prison spending, then you would have considered reducing crimes as the best solution as opposed to “imprisonment that costs” or “death penalty that is cheaper”. Have you considered the additional emotional “costs” the death penalty would inflict upon the convict’s family? The death penalty only perpetuates and extends further suffering.

      For all of you Sankaku prowlers in support for the death penalty, remember that China, the hated nation on this website, has the greatest number of executions held annually, according to official statistics. Unofficially, the numbers could be higher. Perhaps, we should emulate China, and treat convicts on death row like expendable objects and tiresome burdens onto society. Should then hikikomori be executed since they are a burden to society and to their parents?

      • >>Anon 1
        Ahh, yes..I’m pretty cold person to start with..much less I feel any compassion for upper rank criminals. Whatever You consider my opinion as deceitful or not. You cannot deny its logic.

        And how nice of You to consider feelings of the possible convicts family.
        But I must point out..Your reverse logic here is feels like you’d ignore the possible suffering that convict inflicted upon the family of victim, just to try and put up the argument.

        Not like it matters tho. Right now, You might possibly think at least few things about me, including something like “that guy is full of malice”. Perhaps.
        But frankly..even if you wont agree with my opinion at first post. I’m positive You would be much less warm towards criminals, if one would happen to murder off someone from Your bloodline.
        Not that I wish for such unfortunate thing to happen to You.

      • They also have more people not to mention a far stricter government.

        How about how the “emotional costs” victims’ family, knowing that their taxes keep their kin’s murderer alive?

        These are really dangerous people who have taken many lives, perhaps even reveled in it. It’s too risky to think that they could change for the better. These are serial killers, not one-time murderers, rapists, drug-dealers or jaywalkers.

    • But then again, having a facility specifically designed to kill people costs money, for staff, maintenance and so on, the same goes for death row. And then comes the bureaucracy.

      In the US it is normally cheaper to lock them up for life rather than have a large administrative system to check if they truly deserve to die. Getting rid of it could save a lot of money. But then again, the US system is quite messed up with their for-profit prisons (they lobby for making more things illegal, and for longer sentences)and other insane policies (like the three strikes rule, which has lead to lifetime sentences for “minor” crimes they felt forced to do, like stealing food for themselves)

      “-The United States has the highest rate of incarceration at 726 prisoners per 100,000 people.
      -The second highest are Russia, Belarus, and Bermuda, all with a rate of 532 prisoners per 100,000 people.
      -The third is Palau, with 523 prisoners per 100,000 people.
      Western European nations have much lower rates, with England and Wales at 142, Germany at 96, and France at 91 per 100,000 people.”

      • About half that population are people on minor drug offensives.
        It’s a good reason why the war in drugs needs to be ended.
        It’s wrong and it costs about 23,000 to 36,000 USD a year to lock someone up in prison depending on security levels minimum is cheaper.
        You could send them to college for a lot less.

        The stupid three strikes rule is a life sentence on the third strike it’s a harsh sentence of ten or fifteen years for something the would only normally be a year or two if any prison time at all.
        Normally shop lifting only gets you into the country jail if that.
        Most states have abolished the rule as it was locking up shop lifters with murders.

        Who ever came up with the three strikes rule was an idiot plain and simple.
        Lets apply a rule from a stupid game to real life.
        Yes that makes a lot of sense.

    • That’s a closed circle.
      Same way as those who murder should be killed, shouldn’t the members government that approved the law of killing that murderer be killed too?
      An-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye … ends in making everybody blind.

      • I lol’d

        I’m not sure if you’re aware of that, but there is a difference between killing innocent people and killing a murderer.

        The latter profits the society, while the former doesn’t.

        • Executioners do what society obligates them to. Murders do what society explicitly forbids.

          I agree that they waste resources. Also in cases where they are likely to reoffend, letting them live just gives them a chance to murder another inmate or guard, or escape or appeal.

          But I don’t believe it should be a punishment – doing time in a Japanese prison is worse than death – it should only be for practical reasons and even then, only with absolute certainty.

        • 2 Wrongs don’t make a right. Something you would *definitely* understand if you or someone you love would sit on deathrow for something you/he/she didn’t do.

          Btw, only the most primitive countries have death penalties.

        • Do you really have to ask that? I draw the line at the point where society ultimately benefits from it.

          Nobody benefits from killing prisoners. And no, self satisfaction in vengeance does not benefit society.

      • The “…eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth…” Old Testament-Bible-Mosaic Law thing simply meant that if someone did something wrong to you, then you’re entitled to payback. The government that executes the crimal for doing wrong is simply being the instrument of payback and themselves aren’t subject unless it can be proven there was an intentional error on their part.

      • Spoken like a true liberal. The only thing wrong with executions are multiple appeals where the prisoner winds up on death row for 15 years at taxpayer expense. Mandatory time limits on appeals should be the rule. I’ts amazing how many people with your outlook on the death penalty change their tune after a personal experience occurs.

        • Smallpox was eliminated because it was a scourge on society, along with many other diseases. The same should be true of criminals
          who are also a scourge.
          You and I will die someday, thats inevitable.
          A criminal a has lived his life hurting others and causing great pain and suffering should be hastened to his inevitable outcome.

        • “If one person who is innocent is executed then so be it. ”

          So cavalier with other people’s lives. What happens if it’s you?

          “The world has been killing innocent people since the beginning of recorded history. It sucks, but if you think youre going to change it then its you who are being naive.”

          People have been dying from smallpox since the beginning of recorded history. It sucks, but if you think you’re going to change it then…oh, wait, you’re right.

          Not everything is historically inevitable.

        • “weasel words”? “naive conformist”? Sure sounds to me like you’ve adapted the whole elitist mantra. Look up Norman Mailers involvement in getting Jack Abbott, a convicted murderer released from prison on parole in 1980. Six weeks after being on parole he stabbed somebody else to death. True, he wasn’t on death row but its only one example of how the “naive non-conformists” view the world.

          If you would like to house a thousand criminals on death row because you think it makes you more humane and civilized then please do so, but with your money. I would rather see my money spent on hospitals and librarys, things that benefit the law abiding populace then spend another cent putting a lid on a human septic tank.

          Not every criminal in the world is basically good and kind but misguided. If one person who is innocent is executed then so be it. The world has been killing innocent people since the beginning of recorded history. It sucks, but if you think youre going to change it then its you who are being naive.

        • Ibelieve that killing someone for their crimes is a small punishment to pay. They should suffer for their crimes and give back to society even if it’s for life.

          Second thing, if you falsely give the capital punishment that happen to be innocent it would be terrible.

        • Something people seem to overlook (or conveniently avoid) when using the economic burden of feeding and maintaining prisoners, is that there is that old concept called “forced labor”. Don’t want to feed that fucker for free? Make the asshole earn his keep! No work, no food. People would be amazed at how quickly they would change their tune.

        • [quote]I’ts amazing how many people with your outlook on the death penalty change their tune after a personal experience occurs.[/quote]
          Many people believe that weasel words are a bad thing. You shouldn’t use them.

          [quote]The only thing wrong with executions are multiple appeals where the prisoner winds up on death row for 15 years at taxpayer expense.[/quote]
          Spoken like a naive conformist.
          The justice system is quite literally blind. There have been so many cases of people convicted of the worst crimes you could possibly imagine, only to be found innocent many years later after some indisputable evidence of their innocence turns up. To support death penalty with such imperfect system means you will no doubt put some innocent people to death. There have been innocents executed in the past and as long as death penalty exists, more will.

          I for one would see a thousand criminals on death row live, than let one innocent die because of emotionally challenged witch-hunters such as yourself.

    • Why should anyone have to pay the tax to keep some hardcore criminals alive? If a country’s going to keep criminals, they should make them work for their expense.

      People that kill should be killed. +1 for death penalty.

    • Manga ban.
      I see the connection.
      First it’ll be ‘Killing prisioners is bad’
      Then ‘In Death Note, Light Yagami kills prisioners’
      Followed by ‘Manga is bad! It tells us that killing prisioners is good!’.

    • Hmmm… you’re going to learn logic, so why explain it? Well, because I can.

      The Justice Minister’s argument can be summed up as… don’t do something that will happen eventually.

      Your cherry pop rape statement can be summed up as… do something that will happen eventually.

      Notice the difference?

      The Justice Minister’s argument doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense. He probably just said it so that he has something to say.

      Despite that, please try to use the correct logic…

    • Your reasoning is totally retarded.

      I agree that the ministers is not really good as well, but only the most primitive countries have death penalties. It’s not about justice but about revenge and a justice system that endorses revenge just shows how fucked up those people must be.

      Recently many people have been released after very long stays on death row because new DNA evidence was found that proved them to be innocent. In japan quite a few were released after 10-20 or more years in prison because the new evidence proved them to be innocent.

      But what about the people that were executed wrongfully ? What is the difference between a murderer and a state that willingly and knowingly executes innocent people ? That’s not justice but extreme barbarism and the countries where this kind of madness is taking place shoud be ashamed !

      Death penalty needs to go !

    • I have mixed feelings on the death penalty some people deserve to be killed.” I prefer the method of 1500 volts at 50 amps.” But unfortunately the government does make mistakes and sometimes kills an innocent person.
      The Japanese legal system with it’s nearly 100% conviction rate does make me wonder how many innocent people get wrongly sentenced but they don’t execute very many people.
      I’m sure Texas alone does more wrongful executions then all of japan since executed 24 people last year.

    • People die anyway, so why the rush to capture their murderers? Think of how much we could save on the incarceration of criminals!

      *awkward silence*

      …I like the death penalty because I’m an impatient man and want to make sure those monsters die before me.
      In the fast paced world of today we need to make sure murders die even faster than before!

      To this I propose we shoot them, with bullets!

    • No, I think I agree with him. Even if u kill the murderer, your loved ones won’t be coming back. In fact it’s too good for the murderer to be killed instantly. Why not put him in jail and make sure he lives like hell there: torture him everyday, make him do forced labor, give insect, cockroach and shit for his meal everyday, and imagine that this murderer will live 30-50 years for the rest of his life like a garbage and full of misery… heh heh heh…. this sound a LOT better to me (grin)

      • Why? Because you end up paying $$$$ to keep someone in jail? Granted the costs are probably different in Japan, but on average in the US It costs up to 30~k per year per prisoner in jail from the last stats I saw. I’d rather just kill a serial murderer off and be done with it instead of spending millions to keep them in jail pointlessly.

      • the main argument against the death penalty or cruel and unusual punishment, is what if the person is innocent. i say, how about we take the opposite and say, if the person is guilty beyond even unreasonable doubt, then they get the worst punishment ever conceived or at least denied final meals and nothing but rocky dirt to sleep on and poop on. i mean some murders live life better off than half the third world.

      • i still think that they should give prisoners ridiculously dangerous jobs that normal people might have to do. like washing the windows outside the empire state building with no harnesses. or do that deadliest catch show, except there’s no railings on the boat and everything is criscoed down and iced over.

        • This guy is a fucking idiot of the highest degree but I won’t beat a dead horse here…

          On the whole situation though, If the person is labeled dangerous, I say an execution the is inevitable course of action to take but some people could be framed or falsely accused…That is too bad & in those controversial situation only would I think of life in prison over death cause I wouldn’t want them to get out & commit again, they have rights but I have to worry about my well being as well…

          As for any other type of criminal, the death sentence is too harse for them but a different kind of punishment needs to be created for those kind of people aside from jail time which they can easily get bail for unless they get life in which case, that will do just fine as they can’t get out to commit another crime of their choosing…

        • This guy is a fucking idiot of the highest degree but I won’t beat a dead horse here…

          On the whole situation though, If the person is labeled dangerous, I say an execution the is inevitable course of action to take but some people could be framed or falsely accused…That is too bad & in those controversial situation only would I think of life in prison over death cause I wouldn’t want them to get out & commit again, they have rights but I have to worry about my well being as well…

          As for any other type of criminal, the death sentence is too harse for them but a different kind of punishment needs to be created for those kind of people aside from jail time which they can easily get bail for unless they get life in which case, that will do just fine as they can’t get out to commit another crime of their choosing…

        • Ahhh, I’m hungry wanna eat but I’ll be hungry again soon, let’s not eat, fuck it, I’m eating, hmm, I’m full, but since I’m gonna be hungry again anyway, let’s eat, Ooo, I’m really full, since I’ll be full again anyway, let’s eat, since I’ll eat again anyway, let’s eat, hmm or let’s not eat, anyway I’m full now so let’s eat

        • it’s been a long time since i had such a good laugh. XD but yes, it’s truly despairing japan’s minister is filled with em. but i guess since it’s gonna be filled with idiots at anytime in the future, so why not now.

        • If I discovered a way to inflict the utter pain, terror and agony of those victims on the bastards who did the horrid deed, That would be the best way to end the argument right? But I and all of us can NOT do this.

        • MURDERERS should be killed (not Murdered) and thus removed from society permanently. For those who put up strawmen arguments and declare that YOU should be the one with a gun to MURDER them are utter fools in denial.

        • I’ve a relative who is a serial molester(i know not murder) who prey on 6-15 yrs old children. He was send to jail for a few years.
          When he was release, we thought he learn to be good. But he strike again for other poor kids. Now back in jail for more years and will come out again.

          I hope he was sentence to death for the 1st time so he wouldn’t have 2nd chance to harm others.

          If you are the parents of these poor children, would you hope the government sentence him to death or keep him? Why keep these people around and risk harming others.

        • “Lolis will grow up anyway, so might as well do ’em now”

          Hahaha what a gimp..

          I personally think the victim’s family should have some say in what punishment a criminal receives, within reason..

        • “I oppose the death penalty, but I can’t agree with his statement. In fact, I wish he’d shut up as his infantile statements are actually damaging the position of abolitionists”

          Couldn’t agree more. I would say the same thing to Ishihara and his sad ban.

          @Unsung Not just only the minister, but the entire government as well.

        • My father went to jail for my mother’s stupidity… What he saw made him smile. He witnessed a child molester get beaten possibly to death by other inmates who had children on the outside. Too bad that’s not the case huh?

        • what he should be saying is, why execute them when you can make money off them. take there lives, but no need to execute. use em for labor, or other things to help the country.

          i guess only problem with that idea is that the government might take advantage and increase punishment on small sentences

        • The courts that sentence those jailbirds are running on tawpayers’s money.
          These jailbirds are living off on taxpayers’ money.
          Execute them may lower our taxes.

          I know some of them work in jail but is it enough the cover the cost of water, electricity, salary of prison guards that supervise them.

          We have too many people on earth.
          Let execute these criminals to lighten the world bundens.

          Human rights (rights for them to live on) is endangering our world and our taxpayers money.

        • Something really wrong in this discussion.
          True they did wrong, but that’s not an excuse to sentence them to death.

          About the tax part, do you really think at the current state they will lower the tax if there are no people in jail?

          I end with a little question.
          Will you go pull the trigger or whatever initialize a death machine? Will you live without remorse, even if it was someone who did wrong?

      • I oppose the death penalty but not for the reasons above I think getting killed and its over vs sitting and suffering for actions for 50 sometimes longer years is a far more harsh punishment

      • So he’d rather have these excuses-for-a-human-being, chill out in prison, with daily meals under a roof thanks to taxpayer funds, till they’re dying days, even if they’re “convicted” serial killers?

        Fuck, lets give this guy and serial killers the medal.

        Meanwhile, let’s inform the grieving parents/relatives/loved ones know their tax is STILL providing them a comfortable life in prison.

        • You are correct–the death penalty is more expensive, primarily because of the appeals process.

          I know people are going to say “LOL BAN APPEALS LOL” but the point of allowing so many appeals is to make sure that no innocent gets executed. And even so, look at all the people who are exonerated years later on DNA evidence.

          Bottom line is that human memory sucks and the death penalty is unjust because if we’re wrong about someone being guilty we can’t resurrect them and then let them go. Life imprisonment, we don’t need to worry about that happening.

        • But this is just it. I cannot get your a source but I’ve read somewhere that death penalty doesn’t reduce the costs. It actually is cheaper to have them rot away in a prison then to execute them.

          Also their deaths won’t make them feel better. The loved ones they killed are gone and nothing is going to change that.

          Also somehow to me it seems being locked away somewhere for 40+ years potentially is worse punishment then having them killed anyway.

        • Maybe he’s in favor of chain gangs for life where the criminal is sentenced to hard labor chained to fellow inmates, breaking rocks or whatever, from the time of imprisonment until death.
          Or he could be old school as in: Thro’ ‘im in a dark pit and forget he’s there until he dies.

        • What they should do rather then killing them is put them in isolation. They would be put in sound proof rooms without any kind of contact and nothing else for the rest of their lives. This would be much more of a punishment then killing them.

      • [quote]人間はいつかどうせ死ぬんだから、別に死刑執行しなくてもいい気がする」—江田法相[/quote]
        Nope, still sounds naive and silly to me. And there seems to be a bunch of natives who share my opinion (see article).

  • We need the old days brought back in a way… let them fight it out and have people pay to watch. Prisoners already have huge gang fights or one on one killings going on, why not let them do it for a bit of entertainment for the rest of us and a bit of profit for them? Hell, having gangs fight it out on a pay per veiw event would make the prison a lot of money and get rid of some of the population.

  • Another Japanese government official that spouts thing that don’t even make sense(I understand it and we all do just you know what I’m trying to get at). Seriously if Japans government keeps being run by people as dumb as these old guys ugh…the only one that “actually made sense was Japan’s PM”

  • Well another reason is that you have to make room in prison if we took every worst criminal and just put them away for life there will be more prisons needed. Besides some crimes are only forgivable with a one-way ticket to Hell…

  • If he doesn’t want to kill the criminals, maybe he has found a new use for them: Like cannon fodder for the impending Chinese or North Korean invasion or something. You gotta realize there’s a catch to this somewhere.

  • *facepalm 100x*

    wow Japan, what a country ruled by old shitheads, now I loved my country even more, I am really glad not born in Japan right now, REALLY GLAD!

    first Ishihara, and that economics otaku(the one said dun fight back if China attack), and now this, a foolish statement by the Minister of JUSTICE himself (what a pansy!)

    whats new? oh Japanese game developers starting flow with the trend of social game and macho-buff Western style craze

    *facedesking 10000x*

  • jamesownsall says:

    Maybe he was being frank. It was just a public event in which the outcome does not dictate the passing of a new amendment or something.

    If he were to participate in a serious debate on justifying death sentence, I doubt he’d put it in such a silly way.

    Then again, I dunno. These aging Japanese politicians can be senile at times.

  • That statement can easily be twisted into “People die anyway so why let them live”.

    Personally, I’m against the death penalty. Not because I think it’s wrong to kill criminals, but because I think those criminals can still be of use to society in some way.

  • But isnt jailing those people away for the rest of their lives, maybe in solitary confinement, locked away from all the others, a way harder punishment than killing them ? In this case he would be absolutely right.

  • “What’s the point of a law abiding country if everyone is just going to die anyway?”

    This has to be one of the most clever responses ever. It surprises, Japan, one of the most intelligent nations, is run by lazy fucks that want the citizens to do all the work so they can reap in the rewards. Sounds no different than the Bush Administration. Get some logical, independent thinking young minds to run Japan. Maybe then they can get some progress done. It would be cool if they were the first country in Asia to legalize marijuana.