Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics - Eubios Ethics ...

32 Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 22 (January 2012)
following reasons. First, it cannot be denied that some
crimes are so brutal that justice demands the murderer
be eliminated. In Takuma’s case outlined earlier, he
murdered 8 young innocent children by stabbing them to
death with a knife and injured 15 others with the same
weapon. In Kobayashi’s case, he kidnapped a 7-year-old
girl, murdered her, fornicated and inflicted horrendous
damage to her dead body. Some of these murderers
deserve to be sentenced to death, and we will not
contradict that. Second, we cannot ignore the feelings of
revenge and retribution experienced by the families of
murder victims. Their pain and anger must be far more
intense than what we can imagine. Third, although the
same human rights are equally applicable to every one of
us, for those people who have taken that right to life from
another for their own egocentric reasons, it can be
argued they should forfeit their own human rights. In
order to claim one’s right to life, each of us must fulfil
minimum obligations, such as not denying others the
right to life. In cases such as those mentioned above,
whatever the murderers’ desires and motives were, those
who became innocent victims of their violence had no
reason to be killed or role in creating the murderers’
resentment. It is absolutely absurd for the victims and
their family (16). It is difficult for ordinary people to
understand the mind of a murderer, who lives in society
under the same basic rules, which includes ‘not depriving
others of their lives’ (9). Fourth, we must apprehend the
rate of recidivism of lust murderers. Fifth, it is unclear
whether life imprisonment without parole is more
inhumane than the death penalty, and vice versa. This
may depend on each criminal’s values and philosophy.
If it were possible to raise victims from the dead by
taking a murderer’s life, and it were the only chance to
save the victim’s life, would there still be opposition to it?
Would those opposing the death penalty say, ‘Yes, you
can kill the murderer’ or would the answer is still be ‘No?’
The following hypothetical is posed in order to consider
whether it is ever appropriate or forgivable to take a life.
A young man (A) needed some money for his own
pleasure, so he shot a stranger (B) in the heart and took
his money. There were many witnesses and the young
man was arrested at once. After a highly transparent
investigation, a fair process of deliberation with many
eyewitnesses, and his spontaneous confession, there
were no doubts that A was guilty of the crime. A grew up
in a wealthy family and was provided with sufficient
education. Currently, B is in a moribund state and
although the medical team used every possible
treatment, they do not foresee his recovery. The only
chance for his survival is to receive a heart transplant.
Without receiving this transplant within 24 hours, the
prognosis of death is 100% certain. His histocompatibility
is very rare and the sole compatible heart in the world is
A’s. B has a young wife with two babies. Can we take A’s
heart in order to save B?
The authors basically oppose the death penalty, but we
believe that it would be forgivable to take A’s heart for the
purpose of saving B’s life, even if A would consequently
lose his life. B’s life has more value than A’s, and the
former’s right to life should be respected more. We
cannot find any reason to respect A’s human rights under
these circumstances and leave B to die. It can be
assumed that B’s family would prefer to save B’s life,
rather than waiting for A’s repentance so that A can
atone for the rest of his life.
If there is no way to save B’s life, then we cannot easily
claim A’s. B’s death is irrecoverable and killing A will not
change this. Taking A’s life makes no difference unless it
can bring B back to life. The reason it always seems
difficult to have arguments about the death penalty is that
when irrecoverable accidents happen, we should be fair
and make a balanced decision. However, neither ‘an
apology by killing oneself’ (killing the murderer to atone
for his/her crime) nor ‘atoning by life-long apology’ can
bring back lives. The continuous agony suffered by the
victims’ families may never heal. Their greatest wish is
for the victim to be alive. The families would do anything
to make this possible, however, no matter how deep that
wish is, it is impossible. That is the reality of murder
cases (11). Mr. Harada, whose younger brother was
murdered, poured out his feelings:
The sensation was like being suddenly thrown off a
cliff. At the same time, many people including the mass
media were on the cliff asking me if I wanted the
murderer to be thrown off as well. Our family did not ask
for that, but needed to be pulled up from the bottom.
Therefore, we did not ask to toughen the law (11).
People get confused and worried when it comes to ‘the
death penalty’. It is not easy to give a clear solution to it
(13). The Japanese death penalty system has many
problems, including the possibility of false accusations,
steps leading up to execution, and the confined
environment in which prisoners are kept. Thus, Japan
should set a moratorium timeframe regarding executions,
and should halt them while we re-consider future policy.
We have brought up alternative proposals, such as life
imprisonment without parole. The death penalty is a
severe violation of human rights, and problems can be
pointed out from both humanitarian and technical
perspectives. It is difficult to be fair and make balanced
decisions after an irrecoverable crime like murder has
occurred. The current Japanese death penalty system
needs reconsideration, however, and society needs to
reconsider how it should act towards murderers who
deserve a heavy punishment such as the death penalty.
We have not found a definite conclusion to this issue yet.
References
1. A. Clapham. 2007. The Death Penalty. Human Rights A
Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 152-
158.
2. J. Williams. 2007. 50 facts that should change the world.
Revised and Updated edition, Cambridge: Icon Books: 29-35.
3. 19:29pm February 6 2010, asahi.com
http://www.asahi.com/special/08003/TKY201002060263.
4. M. Enyo, D. Nakai & S. Shikkou. December 29 2009. 09
nen hannki, Chiba Housou, Rainen no hanndan ha?
(Execution, Half 2009, Minister of Justice Chiba, What is the
next year’s judgment) asahi.com
http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0910/TKY20091229031
9.html?re=recc.
5. S. Tosa. September 10 2009, asahi.com
http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0910/TKY20090910038
7.html?re=recc.
6. Editorial Execution of prisoners with mental illnesses in
Japan. The Lancet 2009; 374:852.
7. T. Kitao. 2009. Moshi saibanin ni erabaretara, bokuni