Japan should be ensuring the safety of its citizens, but instead it is taking people's lives. Is it acceptable to maintain the ultimate penalty under such circumstances? This is a serious question for society.

The acquittal of 88-year-old Iwao Hakamada, who had been handed the death penalty, has been finalized after prosecutors decided not to appeal the verdict issued by the Shizuoka District Court during his retrial.

Considering the purpose of the retrial system of providing relief to the innocent, this response is only natural. But Japanese prosecutor-general Naomi Unemoto took the rare step of releasing a statement expressing "strong dissatisfaction" with the finalized ruling, which recognized that investigative authorities fabricated evidence in Hakamada's case. It was apparent authorities were trying to save face until the end, suggesting that they are not taking seriously their responsibility for producing false charges. Police and public prosecutors should deeply reflect on the matter and immediately launch a probe to unravel the truth behind the unjust investigation.

False charges threatening people's lives

The latest incident brought into relief problems with Japan's death penalty system.

Hakamada spent 34 years incarcerated on death row over the murder of a family of four in eastern Japan's Shizuoka Prefecture. If the death penalty had been carried out there would have been no way to reverse the miscarriage of justice.

In the 1980s in Japan there were four similar cases in which people handed the death penalty were found not guilty during retrials. There have also been cases where the validity of convictions was contested even after the death penalty was carried out.

Errors are inevitable even during trials as long as humans are evolved in the process. The danger of putting innocent people to death cannot be eliminated.

Even today, potential sources of false charges, such as forced confessions during investigations and preconceived assumptions remain deep-rooted.

After the death penalty was finalized, Hakamada had to live in constant fear of being executed. Under such circumstances he became mentally ill and even after his release he has had difficulty communicating with others around him.

It was in 1948, soon after the end of World War II, that Japan's Supreme Court ruled the death penalty was constitutional. It ruled that executions did not fall under "cruel punishments" forbidden by Article 36 of the Constitution. At the same time, one judge gave a supplementary opinion stating that it could become unconstitutional if public sentiment changed with the times.

Abolition of the death penalty is a global trend. According to one international nongovernmental organization specializing in human rights, 144 countries are now without the death penalty, including countries that have suspended it. The countries that maintain it, located predominantly in the Middle East and Asia, are the minority.

In 1989 the United Nations adopted the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming to abolish the death penalty. Since 2007, the U.N. has repeatedly passed resolutions calling on countries that maintain the death penalty to suspend executions.

Countries develop their own criminal justice systems, but respect for human rights is a universal principle that transcends national frameworks. Life is the foundation of human rights. The abolition of the death penalty is based on the idea that this right must no be infringed on, even by a state.

As for the reason Japan maintains the death penalty, successive justice ministers have stated that "the majority of the public thinks that the death penalty is unavoidable for extremely malicious and violent crimes, and that there remains no end to heinous crimes." Indeed, during a public opinion poll the government conducted in 2019, 80% responded that the death penalty "cannot be helped." However, 35% of respondents said they would support its abolishment if life sentences that incarcerated people for the rest of their natural lives were introduced.

Considering full-scale debate in the Diet

It is necessary to take victims' sentiment on punishment seriously. The feelings of bereaved families whose precious families and loved ones have been murdered, prompting them to call for the perpetrators to pay with their lives, are understandable.

On the other hand, there are families who have ongoing dialogue with the perpetrators to know the truth of the crimes.

Support for the victims of crimes, such as help rebuilding their lives and mental care, must be enhanced separately from punishment of those responsible for the crimes.

Chuo University professor Makoto Ida, a criminal law scholar who has served as head of the Justice Ministry's Legislative Council, emphasized, "Punishment should be considered as a means to impose sanctions on those who violate social rules and to maintain order. It is difficult to justify taking an individual's life for the public good."

Problems with the operation of the death penalty system itself have been pointed out. People on death row are severely restricted from contact with those in the outside world. Moreover, they are not informed of their date of execution until the day in question, and the fear of death continues throughout their incarceration. There is no time for them to say goodbye to family members.

Public opportunities to gain information on the death penalty are limited. The Japanese government does not disclose the decision-making process surrounding executions, such as the timing and who is involved, or provide detailed circumstances on implementation of the penalty.

A Diet members' caucus has undertaken activities to put an end to the death penalty, and in the past, a bill to abolish the death penalty was proposed. But no full-scale discussion has taken place.

It is necessary to create a forum in the Diet to review the death penalty system. The acquittal of Hakamada should be turned into an opportunity to deepen debate with a view to abolishing the death penalty.