kidl2013.up.seesaa.netkidl2013.up.seesaa.net/image/E5AE8CE68890E78988...Web viewDeath sentence class criminal will slip in society with parole. 3

NEGATIVE KIDL Model 2013

1


Table of Contents

DA Protection from recidivism. P.3

DA Retributivism P.6Practical impact(私的報復) P.8VS utilitarianism P.9Retributivism VS Consequentialism P.10VS Civilization require abolition of death penalty with tolerance P11VS Revenge is evil P12

VS 冤罪

A. Judicial error is permissible risk. P.13B. The risk of judicial errors can be almost zero.P.14

DA Victim’s family P.16DA2 Support P.19

VS death penalty harm survivors’ mental P.20VS counseling P.21

DA Belief of Deterrence P.22

CP Severe Penalty P.26

CP You Only Live Twice P28

VS AD3 Cost P.29VS increasing police is more effective P.30

2


DA Protection from recidivism.UQ1. The number of recidivism by condemned is zero.

Link1. After the plan, death sentence is reduced life imprisonment.

2. Death sentence class criminal will slip in society with parole.

3. But they are not educated enough in terms of their recidivism rate.They have 450 times higher tendency to commit murder than layperson.

According to research of 労働政策研究所 '12, Japanese working age (15-64) is 80.926 millions in 2010.And according to 警視庁犯罪白書'11, the number of murder cases is 1,067 in 2010 In simple calculation, possibility to homicide per capita is 0.0013%.However, C/A Affirmative, recidivism rate of homicide is 0.6%.This is about 450 times of laypersons.http://www.jil.go.jp/kokunai/statistics/databook/2012/02/p058_t2-4.pdfhttp://hakusyo1.moj.go.jp/jp/58/nfm/n_58_2_1_1_2_2.html

Imp1. Neighbors of them are exposed 450 times higher risk.

2. Someone killed.Fox news .com '08 http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2008Feb01/0,4675,JapanExecutions,00.htmlMochida, 65, was executed for the 1997 murder of a woman he had raped eight years earlier. The ministry said the murder was in revenge for reporting the rape, for which he was sentenced to seven years in prison.

3

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2008Feb01/0,4675,JapanExecutions,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2008Feb01/0,4675,JapanExecutions,00.html

http://hakusyo1.moj.go.jp/jp/58/nfm/n_58_2_1_1_2_2.html

http://www.jil.go.jp/kokunai/statistics/databook/2012/02/p058_t2-4.pdf



4



5


DA (Retributivism)a) Retribution justifies punishment.1. The idea of retribution is that offender should be punished because they deserve it.

2. This idea is required by fairness.First of all, we enjoy advantages and undertake obligations in the society. For example, we are protected from unreasonable harms. Instead, we must not harm others. Therefore crime make unfair situation, that offenders harm others although they are protected from harms. That’s why we have to compensate this unfairness through the punishment that the offenders deserve.

b) Retribution entails proportionality1. Idea of retribution entails proportionality of punishments, or severity of punishment should be proportional to the gravity of their crime.This is because the more serious harm offenders give to society, the more unfairness is here, so the more severe punishment should be given in order to compensate it.

c) Proportionality entails death penalty1. As long as proportionality is required, we cannot deny the existence of offender who deserves death penalty.Even if single murder doesn’t deserve it, how about multiple murderer who killed many persons? Furthermore, how about Hitler?

6


2. In SQ, every murderer is examined whether they deserve death penalty or not by justices and citizen judges considering consequence, responsibility and intention in his crime. I refer to the recent death penalty decision of Supreme Court. NHK commentator Tomoi 2012/ 「時論公論　「光市母子殺害事件　死刑判決が意味するもの」 | 時論公論 | 解説委員

室ブログ :NHK 」 / 2012 年 02 月 20 日 / 友井秀和 / Available at 2011/03/05 /

http://www.nhk.or.jp/kaisetsu-blog/100/110262.html

Q) The Supreme court made the final decision to inflict death penalty on the man who was charged with killing a household and her young daughter in Hikari city, Yamaguchi prefecture, and who was 18 years old at the time of crime. (omit) Considering this, the Supreme court deemed that "While we should consider the fact that he had just turned 18 years old at the time of the crime, it is not enough to avoid death sentence." And today, it pointed out that "his crime is brutal and the survivor's feelings of victimization is extremely severe. He killed the peaceful family in their house, and it was shock to the society." It concluded that "even considering all contexts, we must sentence death penalty since his criminal responsibility is too significant." (UQ山口県光市で主婦と幼い娘を殺害した罪に問われた、事件当時１８歳だった元少年に、最高裁判所で死刑が確定することになり

ました。(中略)これに対して、最高裁判所は、平成１８年に、「１８歳になって間もない少年だったことは、考えなくてはなら

ないことではあるが、死刑を避ける決定的な事情とは言えない」と判断しました。そのうえで、きょうは、「非人間的な犯行で、

遺族の被害感情は峻烈を極めている。平穏に暮らしていた親子が自宅で殺害され、社会に衝撃を与えた」と指摘しました。「刑

事責任はあまりに重大で、あらゆる事情を検討しても死刑にせざるをえない」というのが結論でした。

3. However AP murderers are never punished by death and given too light punishment. It’s against retributive justice.

c) Comparison supportEven if death penalty violates the value of Utilitarianism or Humanitarianism,In Japan, Nation support death penalty based on the value of retributive justice that is one of the legitimate values. This can be conclusion of value comparison.Professor at Chuo University Law School: Nagai 1997/「<論説>世論と誤判をめぐる死刑存廃論 : 死刑の正

当根拠について」/1997-09-10/長井圓/Available at

2013/03/05/ http://klibredb.lib.kanagawa-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10487/2381/1/kana-4-31-2-0001.pdf [Authority:

http://ir.c.chuo-u.ac.jp/researcher/profile/00010985.html]

Q) The contents of the public mind consist of "sense of retributive justice", which is regarded as "national belief of law". It's based on simple view of equity that the compensation of invasion and harm with invasion and harm, or a concept of justice. As long as it relies on Equitable Justice, which is definitely one of justice, It is natural that the retention of the death penalty is justified by public mind supporting this theory of justice, from the position of

7

http://www.nhk.or.jp/kaisetsu-blog/100/110262.html


retributivism that support the death penalty. (UQ 世論の「内容」をなすのが、「国民の法的確信」とされる「応報的正義感情」である。それは、侵害・害悪に対して侵害・害悪

で報いるという素朴な「衡平観」つまり「正義の価値観」に根ざしている。それは、「均分的正義」という疑いなく一つの「正

義」の基準に依拠している。したがって、死刑存置を支持する「応報刑論」の立場から、この正義論を支持する世論が死刑存置

の論拠とされるのは当然のことである。

8


Practical impact( 私的報復 ) If law ignores retributive justice, nation regard law as not justice and it weakens respect for the law. It result in unstable society where personal revenge or ignorance of law spread.Ministry of Justice 1986 / 「昭和６１年版　犯罪白書第 4 編 / 第 1 章」 / Available at

2013/03/05 / http://hakusyo1.moj.go.jp/jp/27/nfm/n_27_2_4_1_0_0.html

Q) Criminal justice system started when the state deprived nation of measure to do personal

revenge and monopolized it. But it cannot remove retributive mind form human. We cannot deny

that retributive mind exist at the basis of guilt and punishment. It has never changed until now, and

we can say it is common and healthy sensation of society and the belief of law. It is not necessary

to inflict harsher punishment than that required by this retributive perspective, but if criminal justice

doesn't satisfy common and healthy sense of retribution, it lose trust of nation, and eventually the

trend of personal revenge will be caused. (UQ刑事司法は，国民から私的報復手段を取り上げ，これを国家の手に独占したことによって始まったものである。しかし，人間か

ら応報感情を取り去ることはできず，罪と罰の根底に国民の応報感情が存在することは否定できない。それは現代においても変

わるものではなく，正常な社会の一般的感覚であり，法的確信であるということができよう。このような応報感情を超える過酷

な処罰は不必要であろうが，一般人の正常な応報感情を満足させないような刑事司法は，国民の信頼を失い，ひいては私的報復

の風潮すら生むに至るであろう。

Even AP police execute death penalty on the ground without examination in court.Lawyer Okamura 2008 / 2008 年 06 月 08 日 /岡村勲　/ 弁護士・全国犯罪被害者の会「あすの会」代表幹事 / 「死刑制

度は絶対に必要　奪った生命を何で償うのか | 社会 | PHP ビジネスオンライン衆知｜PHP 研究所」 / Available at

2013/03/05 / http://shuchi.php.co.jp/article/555

Q) I want to say one more thing that, shoot to kill is conducted on the ground of investigation in most of abolitionist countries, they are executed only with suspicion before judgment. Is there no false accusation case in this process? In our country, pistol is rarely used at the time of arrest. And death penalty is inflicted only when guilty is confirmed through fair judgment. This difference must be considered. (UQそれにもう 1 ついいたいことがある。死刑廃止国では捜査段階の現場で、犯人射殺が行なわれている国が多いということだ。裁

判を受ける以前に、嫌疑だけで処刑されているのだ。この段階で冤罪による射殺はないのか。わが国では、逮捕するにも拳銃が

使用されることはきわめて希だ。公平な裁判を受け、有罪となったとき、初めて死刑となる。この違いを考えることが必要だ。

9


VS utilitarianism Utilitarianism cannot be absolute in decision making because it disregards fairness. 1. From the viewpoint of utilitarian, maximizing total happiness in society is always good. So unfairness cannot be considered.2. However fairness is a most fundamental value. Even if it maximize total amount of happiness, if it sacrifices minority unreasonably like slave, we cannot say it’s good because it’s unfair.

To prove it, let me show an extreme example. Please imagine that in a country, every one except a girl is very happy at the sacrifices of the innocent girl, that means all the abnormal happiness is generated by torturing the innocent girl. Is it ok?As long as our morality regards it as evil, fairness is one of the important values.

So we can conclude utilitarianism is too simplified and not enough to explain our values.

10


Retributivism VS ConsequentialismFirst of all, we need general justification of punishment as long as any punishment deprives individuals of some or all human rights.

However Consequentialism cannot justify punishment because logically it allows punishment of innocent people or too harsh punishment as long as it achieves crime prevention. For example, Innocent person can be punished because if he judged as potential criminal by his gene or character, it’s enough reason to imprison him for crime prevention.Furthermore, thief can be punished by life imprisonment because if he cannot be rehabilitated, he must be imprisoned until he dies for crime prevention. It’s too harsh.In contrast, murderer can go out from prison soon, if he is rehabilitated and change his mind soon. It’s too light.

Therefore as long as you believe punishment of innocent or too harsh punishment should not be allowed in criminal justice system, crime prevention cannot justify punishment. In other word, to impose punishment, we require the fact of crime that deserves punishment. That means retributivism is only one justification of punishment.

別バージョン(本人の責任の有無)Consequentialism regard punishment is for rehabilitation and deterrence.However, if the rehabilitation is the purpose, it means the criminal is punished to prevent his own future crime although it is not sure whether he commits crime or not in future. It’s impermissible.And if deterrence is the purpose, it means that he is punished to prevent other’s future crime although he has nothing to do with it. It’s also impermissible.

Anyway we need the fact of his crime to punish individuals. This thought itself is retributivism that someone who committed crime should be punished because he did bad thing that deserves punishment.

11


VS Civilization (modernization) require abolition of death penalty with tolerance1. It’s arbitrary definition of civilization by Western countries that abolish death penalty. So it’s just moral of western countries.Professor VAN DEN HAAG(ヴァン・デン・ハーグ )1985 / ERNEST VAN DEN HAAG / 「 Refuting Reiman

and Nathanson /Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Spring, 1985), pp. 165-

176 / http://orgs.law.ucla.edu/LTW/Documents/Week%201%20-%20Readings/BR%203-Ernest%20van%20den

%20Haag-Refuting%20Reiman%20and%20Nathanson.pdf/ Professor: Judisprudence, Fordham University (1982-88)

[http://www.nndb.com/people/472/000117121/] available at 2013/03/05

Q) To argue more generally, as Reiman also does, that capital punishment is inconsistent with the advancement of civilization, is to rely on arbitrary definitions of "advancement" and "civilization" for a circular argument. If civilization actually had "advanced" in the direction Reiman, quoting Durkheim, thinks it has, why is that a reason for not preferring "advancement" in some other, perhaps opposite, direction? I cannot find the moral (normative) argument in Reiman's description. (UQ

2. Japanese morality is different and rather regards retribution as good c/a comparison support. It’s just like the case of eating Whale.

3. Therefore, to deny common value of Japan, more solid logic or basis of morality is necessary without depending on other’s dogma.

12


VS Revenge is evil1. The reason why revenge is bad is it generate chain of revenge or it is motivated by hate or it involve pleasure in other’s suffering or so force.But retribution doesn’t have these elements. So retribution is not evil.Professor Thomas 2001 /OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS / Virtue, Vice, and Value - Thomas Hurka Professor of

Philosophy University of Calgary - Google ブックス /available at 2013/03/05 / http://books.google.co.jp/books?

id=BxDGBKApQjcC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195#v=onepage&q&f=false

Q) As Nozick notes, these features distinguish the virtue of retributive justice from the superficially similar vice of vengefulness, or the desire for revenge. A person can desire revenge for any harm or injury done him and not just for one involving a wrong or vice on another’s part. (Consider a criminal seeking revenge against the detective who put him in jail.) Revenge therefore need not rest, as retribution does, on any belief about justice or desert. In addition, the desire for revenge is not internally limited as the desire for retribution is. Even if a vengeful person does not in fact inflict unlimited pain, there is nothing in his motivation that requires him not to do so; this is why feuds based on revenge so often escalate. Finally, revenge is accompanied by a different emotional tone than retribution. As Nozick puts it, revenge involves “pleasure in the suffering of another, while retribution either need involve no emotional tone, or involve another one, namely, pleasure at justice being done.” Whereas vengefulness is a form of malice, involving delight in another’s evil, retributive justice has a different, good, intentional object. (UQ

2. In principle, proportionality doesn’t require same harm as punishment, It just insist that the more serious crime he did, the more sever punishment he should receive. Professor Edward 2011 / In Defense of Capital Punishment | Public Discourse /September 29th,

2011 /http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/09/4033/ Edward Feser is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at

Pasadena City College[http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/09/4033/] available at 2013/03/05

Q) In short, the punishment should fit the crime. This does not mean that a wrongdoer should have the same wrong inflicted upon him that he has committed against others—that rapists should be raped, or that arsonists should have their houses burned down. Sometimes inflicting such punishments would be impossible (a mass murderer cannot be executed multiple times), or would do more harm than good. The point is rather that the gravity of the punishment should reflect the gravity of the wrongdoing. Hence those guilty of large thefts should be punished more severely than those guilty of small ones, those guilty of inflicting serious bodily injury should be punished more severely than those merely guilty of theft, and so forth. (UQ

13


Prohibition of corporal punishment such as rape penalty or torture doesn’t negate proportionality. It just means that these punishments have practical difficulty of execution and uncomfortable appearance. So such punishments are substituted by imprisonment for appropriate period. It’s still proportional.

14


vs 冤罪

A. Judicial error is permissible risk.1. Judicial error is not a matter of death penalty. It can occur also in case of imprisonment.

2. Imprisonment is also unrecoverable human-rights infringement.You might think monetary compensation is possible is possible in case of imprisonment different from the case of death penalty. However, even if they get money in the latter years of their life, they cannot get back his blight younger days that has lost. Furthermore, if an innocent prisoner die in prison, it become impossible to compensate as same as the case of death penalty.So, any punishment is inherently unrecoverable and inflicting any punishment on innocent is equally bad.

3. However, we cannot abolish the system of imprisonment for this reason, right?The reason is that we must inflict imprisonment on offenders because offenders deserve it. On the other hand, the risk of judicial error is sufficiently minimized.

4. For the same reason, judicial error in death sentence is also permissible as long as there are offenders who deserve death penalty.

15


B. The risk of judicial errors can be almost zero.1. There are two main causes of judicial errors: 1st poor-quality DNA testing in past and 2nd

forced confessions.1st one has already been solved.2nd one can be solved with introducing visualization of interrogation, or interview of suspect. ASAHI NEWS PAPER 2009 /０９年０６月０５日　朝刊　３面　『朝日新聞』－「社説」＝足利事件―ＤＮＡ型一致せずの衝撃 /

朝日新聞記事データベース「聞蔵Ⅱ」より /

Q) The decisive factor of the arrest was the DNA testing which had just introduced to criminal investigation. The result of the test was that the offender's biological fluid taken from victim's clothes and Mr. Sugaya's one had same DNA form. Mr. Sugaya confessed his crime when he was confronted with the result of the DNA testing. (omit) Mr. Sugaya in prison and his defense team requested the retrial and require DNA retest. The accuracy of DNA testing, which was able to identify 1.2 out of 1,000 persons at that time, has been improved to be able to identify 1 out of 4.7 trillion persons today. (omit) Also the Count have to reflect seriously. Did not they convict without enough examination of credibility of forced confession, overestimating DNA testing? This point should be strictly examined in the retrial. In order to prevent forced confession, visualizing interrogation is essential. Recording of partial interrogation is conducted today, but this problem suggest the necessary to record all process of interrogation. (UQ取調官から鑑定結果を突きつけられ、菅家さんは犯行を自白したという。（中略）獄中の菅家さんと弁護団は再審を請求し、

再鑑定を求めた。事件当時は千人に１．２人を識別できる程度だった鑑定の精度が、いまでは４兆７千億人に１人にまで向上

しているからだ。(中略) ＤＮＡ型鑑定を過信するあまり、無理やり引き出された「自白」の信用性を十分検討せず、有罪との

判断に陥った面はなかったか。再審裁判ではこの点を厳しく検証しなくてはならない。自白の強制を防ぐためには、取り調べ

の可視化が重要だ。取り調べの録画は一部にとどまっているが、すべての過程の録画が必要だ。このことを今回の問題は改め

て示している。

Therefor, 1st minor repair: shall introduce visualization of interrogation as required above.

It minimizes the risk of judicial error extremely. It’s enough.

2. Judicial error cannot be the reason to abolish death penalty because surely there are cases that suspect absolutely deserve death penalty because of so cruel crime and solid evidences. Professor at Chuo University Law School: Nagai 1997/「<論説>世論と誤判をめぐる死刑存廃論 : 死刑の

正当根拠について」/1997-09-10/長井圓/Available at

2013/03/05/ http://klibredb.lib.kanagawa-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10487/2381/1/kana-4-31-2-0001.pdf [Authorit

y: http://ir.c.chuo-u.ac.jp/researcher/profile/00010985.html]

16


Q) Is it possible to be cases where "the risk of Judicial error is zero" concerning death sentence? We certainly cannot deny "the impossibility to avoid judicial error" by "macro-level consideration". However, by "Micro-level consideration", we can affirm possibility to be "the zero risk of judicial error". For example, In cases of serial murder or indiscriminate mass murder, where the criminal was arrested in front of many witnesses, it is surely possible to be cases where a lot of solid evidences that is non-controversial even in future exist on culpable murder, and that must meet the standard of death penalty. (UQそれでは、死刑判決について「誤判のおそれが絶対にありえない」という事案は、ありえないのであろうか。なるほど「大量

的考察方法」によれば、珊誤判の回避不可能性」は否定しえない。しかし、「個別的考察方法」によれば・誤判の可能性の皆

無」は肯定しうるであろう.例えば、連続複数殺人あるいは同時無差別大.璽殺人のような事件で多衆の目撃する中で犯人が現

行犯逮捕されたような場合には、いかなる観点からしても事後的に崩しえない多数の確実な証拠が違法有責な殺人について存

在し、いかなる量刑事情を考慮しても死刑を選択すべき基準に適合せざるをえないという事案が存在しうることは、疑いない

からである。

Therefore, 2nd minor repair: Court shall sentence death penalty only when sufficient evidence support the fact of crime.

As long as you never require absolute zero risk of judicial error, it’s enough.

17


DA (Victim’s family)Observation: Survivor’s hope and Government’s duty1. Desire of revenge is natural and moral human instinct. So in ancient society, revenge is not prohibited but rather encouraged as ADA-UCHI.

2. In modern society, only government have the right to punish individuals and personal revenge is prohibited. Instead, government has duty to complete the revenge as punishment to the offender.Lawyer Okamura 2008 / 2008 年 06 月 08 日 /岡村勲　/ 弁護士・全国犯罪被害者の会「あすの会」代表幹事 / 「死刑制

度は絶対に必要　奪った生命を何で償うのか | 社会 | PHP ビジネスオンライン衆知｜PHP 研究所」 / Available at

2013/03/05 / http://shuchi.php.co.jp/article/555

Q) In the natural state, humans had retributive rights, or revenge rights as a natural right. And vengeance was regarded as a legitimate right. However, if individuals took revenges, we could not maintain peace. This is why we established the states and assigned revenge or retributive rights to the states by banning personal revenge. Punitive authority of the state, which was established in this way, has been to take victims’ revenge, instead of the individuals, and been the entrustment of retributive rights from the victims, [which is] the social contract theory. Our present Constitution also stands on the social contract theory. The state has promised to take retribution, instead of individuals. Speaking in the extreme, if the state don’t take revenge of one’s family, the one can terminate the entrustment and regain the right to the revenge. (UQ自然状態においては、人間は、自然権として復讐権、応報権をもち、仇討ちは当然の権利であった。しかし個人が復讐すると復

讐は復讐を呼び、平和が保てない。そこで国家をつくり復讐権、応報権を国家に譲渡し、個人の復讐を禁止した。こうしてでき

た国家の刑罰権は、被害者に代わって被害者のために行使するもので、被害者からの応報権の信託譲渡であった（社会契約説）。

わが国の現行憲法も、社会契約説に立っている。国家が個人に代わって応報をするという約束を引き受けたのだ。極論するなら、

国家が殺された家族の仇を討ってくれなくなったときは、被害者は信託契約を解除して仇討ちの権利を取り戻してもよいことに

なる。

3. Most survivors of heinous murder hope the death of the offender.Ministry of Justice 1975 / 内閣府国が実施する被害者問題に関する主な実態・意識調査等一覧 / 生命・身体犯の被害者等

に関する実態調査（調査１）昭和 50 年法務省法務総合研究所　 http://www8.cao.go.jp/hanzai/local/pdf/san06.pdf /availab

le at 2013/03/05/

Q) By looking at what kind of punishment the survivors want on the perpetrators, while we need to consider that these feeling was expressed in a limited period prior to the final judgment, 73.2% of the survivors said they want death penalty, which turned

18


out that they have severely hard feelings against the perpetrators. (UQ 遺族が加害者に対しどのような処罰を希望しているかを見ると、その感情表明された時期が刑確定前という一時期に限定されて

いることに留意する必要があるが、73.3％の遺族が死刑を望むと述べており、加害者に対して厳しい感情を有していることが

分かった。

19


UQ 1. Court reflects the opinion of victim sides into sentences. KYODO PRESS 2009 / 連載企画 : どう受け止める遺族感情　　極刑急増も「社会が裁く」 - 裁判員をよむ - 47NEWS（よ

んななニュース） / 共同通信社　 2009 年 03 月 13 日 / Available at

2013/03/05 /http://www.47news.jp/feature/saibanin/47news/094633.html

Q) In an attitude survey in which Legal Research and Training Institute in the Supreme court gathered answers from 1,000 citizens and 766 justices in 2005, the ratio of those who answered "to make punishment more severe" or "to make slightly more severe" when victim's side want severe punishment,, was 80% in the justices, and 50% in the citizens. (UQ最高裁司法研修所が２００５年、全国の市民１０００人と裁判官７６６人から回答を得た意識調査で、被害者側が重い刑を望ん

だ場合「重くする」か「やや重くする」と答えたのは裁判官の８０％に上ったが、市民は５０％にとどまった。

2. Court sentences the death penalty with respecting survivor's request for it.I refer to the recent death penalty judgment of Supreme Court.Sankei News 2012 /【光市母子殺害】年齢で死刑回避せず　被害感情、残虐さ重視＋（1/3ページ） - MSN産経ニュース

/ 2012.2.20/ available at2013/03/05 / http://sankei.jp.msn.com/affairs/news/120220/trl12022021040014-n1.htm

Q) In a decision at the appeal hearings on the case of mother and baby murder in Hikari city on 20, the Supreme

court showed again their stance to inflict on severe punishment even on a juvenile if one commits heinous and cruel crime. Since he have already been sentenced to death also in lay judge trial, this decision demonstrate that

age cannot be decisive factor to avoid death penalty. [The court said] “We must say his act was cold-hearted,

brutal and inhuman.” and “Survivor's feelings of victimization is extremely severe.” Court prioritized the brutality

of crime and survivor’s feelings of victimization in the sentence. (UQ

光市母子殺害事件の２０日の差し戻し上告審判決で、最高裁は、少年であっても凶悪で残虐な犯行を起こせば、厳罰で臨む姿勢

を改めて示したといえる。裁判員裁判でもすでに少年に死刑が言い渡されており、今回の結論によって、年齢が死刑回避の決定

的な要因とならないことを印象づけた。　「冷酷、残虐にして非人間的な所業と言わざるを得ない」「遺族の被害感情は峻烈

（しゅんれつ）を極めている」。最高裁が判決で重視したのは、犯行の残虐さや遺族の被害感情だった。

3. Death of the offender gives satisfaction and sense of closure to the survivor Non-fiction writer Fujii 2002/少年に奪われた人生（犯罪被害者遺族の戦い-）藤井誠二/2002 年 8 月 25 日/朝日新聞

社/P.168/

Q) Off course there are victim’s families who want perpetrator to live and make up for their crime, but the reason why victims’ families want death penalty is to satisfy their retributive feelings and to make it closure to live their new life. I have heard the survivor’s words that “I can gain power to live positively only by remembering that the offender has gone.” We can say the “compensation” for victim’s families is the “death” of the offenders. (UQ むろん、加害者が生きて償うことを望む被害者遺族もいるが、被害者遺族が死刑を

望む理由はそれによって応報感情を埋め、新しい人生を生きるための「区切り」にするためである。「加害者がこの世にいない

20


と思うだけで、前向きに生きる力がわいてくる」という遺族の言葉を私は聞いたことがある。被害者遺族にとっての「償い」が

加害者の「死」であると言い換えることだってできるのだ。

21


LK1. AP there is no way to inflict death on offender of even the most heinous murder.2. Victim cannot satisfy life imprisonment and the closure never comes to them because what they hope is death of the offender cross apply a) 3rd card.

IMP1. Government never satisfies retributive justice that is required by survivor. It’s against obligation of government in social contract c/a a) 2nd.3. The survivor’s suffering is serious.2. AP the families of victims will kill criminals. Journalist Setou 1989/勢藤修三 (元毎日新聞政治部) 「死刑の考現学」三省堂 pp.220 /

Q) Mr. Ichise had knife to wait for opportunity in Court and Mr. Nakajima killed the opponent actually. It is no doubt that both of them decided their revenge because of grievances with no expectation of capital punishment and despair with criminal justice system. As things turned out after that, there was a large difference between the feeling of Mr. Ichise and the result of punishment in 1st trial. (UQ 懐に出刃包丁を隠し法廷で機会を窺った市瀬朝一も、実際に手を下して相手を殺害した中島三至も、加害者が極刑になる期待可

能性が皆無という不満感と司法制度への絶望感から復讐を決意したに違いない。そのときの市瀬の心情と、のちに加害者に対す

る一審判決の量刑を結果論からみると相当の隔たりがある。

22


DA2 SupportWe cannot regard survivors’ vengefulness as evil, because what survivor wants is retributive justice.Gail B. Stewart 1998 From opposing view point research center, "which is learning database and used in

many universities." / The Death Penalty Can Ease the Suffering of Victims' Families. Opposing Viewpoints Digests:

The Death Penalty. Gail B. Stewart. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. From Opposing Viewpoints Resource

Centerhttps://2009researchpaper.wikispaces.com/file/view/Capital+Punishment+Pro+5.pdf

Q) No, it isn't merely vengeance, but retribution—a way that society can balance the scales, saysJack Collins, whose daughter was brutally raped, beaten, tortured, and murdered: It's a way of giving the victims and their families a feeling of satisfaction for what was done to them, to make them whole as far as possible or restore integrity—the quality or state of completeness—to both the people and the system. Nothing will ever bring Suzanne back to us. But even if this retribution doesn't bring complete closure, it shows us that society, the jury, and the entire criminal justice system care enough about us to see to it that our daughter's killer receives his appropriate punishment. It lets us know that they did right by us as far as they could. (UQ

Survivor want severe punishment that offender deserve because undeserved punishment devalue the victim’s life, and they think any penalty less than death penalty is undeserved one.Gail B. Stewart 1998 From opposing view point research center, "which is learning database and used in

many universities." / The Death Penalty Can Ease the Suffering of Victims' Families. Opposing Viewpoints Digests:

The Death Penalty. Gail B. Stewart. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. From Opposing Viewpoints Resource

Centerhttps://2009researchpaper.wikispaces.com/file/view/Capital+Punishment+Pro+5.pdf

Q) What happens when the punishment goes unserved, or when it is far less severe than the crime? To put a murderer behind bars for a decade or so, a punishment that is effectively the same as an embezzler would get, is disrespectful. It devalues the life that was lost, making a mockery of justice. Donnetta Apple's brother was killed in the bombing of the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. Although never a supporter of the death penalty, Apple feels now that anything less than death would be a slap in the face to her brother and the 167 others who were killed in the bombing. To her, she says, it boils down to the concept of making choices—one of the most important, basic parts of life: [Timothy McVeigh] chose to park that truck, put in his earplugs, and walk off. When he did that, he took away the rights of 168 people to ever make decisions of their own again. My brother and the others can't elect to work, or play, or spend time with their families. So I don't want McVeigh to have the freedom

23


to even get a drink of water in his cell. If those 168 victims can't make the most basic of choices, why should he? [He] has to pay for the choice he made on April 19, 1995—and he has to pay with his life. 6 It is time we paid attention to the victims of the unspeakable crimes that occur in our society. They—more than anyone—understand the pain and loss that such crimes cause. They deserve the healing and closure that can come with resolution. And their voices need to be heard. (UQ

24


VS death penalty harm survivors’ mental Their evidence based on the data of Texas who retain death penalty.However, they never analyze why death penalty causes mental damage on survivors in Texas, although they hope it. So I’ll show counter analysis.1. In Texas, unlike Japan, the murder survivors witness the execution of the offenders.Texas Department of Criminal Justice 2010 / Publications - Annual Review 2010 / July 2011 / available at

2013/03/05 http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/pubs_annual_review_2010.html

Q) Victim Services arranges for victims’ family and friends to view executions. As many as five relatives or close friends of the victim can witness the offender’s execution. (omit) During FY 2010, at least one Victim Services representative attended 21 executions, providing support to 95 victim witnesses and 49 victim supporters. (UQ

2. This study shows that the witness of execution causes trauma. Professor at Stanford University DAVID 2001 / Professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at

Stanford University School of Medicine / DAVID SPIEGEL / Sunday, April 29, 2001 / Closure? The Execution Was Just

the Start | Death Penalty Information Center / http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/613 available at 2013/03/05

Q) Fifteen of the 18 reporters who covered Harris's execution agreed to participate in our study, the results of which were published in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 1994. It was a small but significant sample: The reporters had been chosen by lottery and were thus random representatives of the much larger group that had applied to cover Harris's execution. We found that these professional journalists suffered severe after-effects, at least in the short term. (omit) These men and women were displaying many of the reactions usually associated with acute stress. They had difficulty managing the emotions that the execution aroused. (omit) Bear in mind that this was a mentally healthy, seasoned group of reporters who had earnestly sought the opportunity to cover the execution. They were in no danger, had a job to do, could look to one another for support, and had no emotional tie to Harris or his victims. Yet in our interviews with them, we found levels of post-traumatic symptoms comparable to those we found among employees at 101 California Street in San Francisco, where eight people were fatally shot on July 1, 1993, by a disgruntled law-firm client who entered the building armed with high-powered assault weapons. The Harris execution witnesses were just as troubled by intrusive thoughts, nightmares, uncontrolled emotions, detachment from others and a desire to avoid remembering as were the office workers who not only heard shots fired but easily could have been killed themselves. (UQ3. Therefore, in the data of Texas, the survivors are damaged mentally not by the death penalty itself, but by the viewing the execution. (UQ

25

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/pubs_annual_review_2010.html


4. Since the victims never witness the execution in Japan, this traumatizing effect doesn’t appear.

26


VS counseling Inflicting appropriate punishment is prerequisite for survivor’s mental care before counseling.Dr. Nakajima 2010/ 精神保健研究　第 56 号　2010 年「犯罪被害者の help-seeking とメンタルヘルスサービス」

/中　島　聡　美 /国立精神・神経センター精神保健研究所成人精神保健研究部 Department of Adult Mental Health, National

Institute of Mental Health, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry 犯罪被害者等支援研究室長　医学博士，臨床心理

士，日本精神神経学会精神科専門医・指導医 [http://www.ncnp.go.jp/nimh/seijin/pg25.html ] / http://www.ncnp.go.jp/

nimh/pdf/kenkyu56.pdf

Q) However, the specialist of mental health should understand that mental health-care is not all of the victim support, furthermore, not primary needs of victims. According to “Public-opinion survey concerning crime victims” conducted by Cabinet Office in 2006, The treatments that crime victims feels effective for their recovery are “appropriate punishment on the perpetrator” (59.6%), “the offender’s restitution”(50.5%), “Providing the information about the perpetrator and the crime”(50.5%). Like this, supports concerning treatment of perpetrator and trial, and monetary support are superior. It implies that Counseling (36.2%) was required after satisfying these needs. (UQしかし、「心のケア」が被害者の支援のすべてではなく、また第一次的な被害者のニーズではないこともメンタルヘルス専門家

は知っておく必要があるだろう。内閣府が平成 18 年度に実施した「犯罪被害者等に関する国民意識調査」13）では、犯罪被害

者が回復に有効だと感じた処置は、「加害者の適正な処罰」（59.6%）、「加害者の被害弁償」（59.3%）、「加害者や事件に

ついての情報提供」（50.5%）など加害者に対する処置や裁判等の支援、経済的支援などが上位であり、「カウンセリング」

（36.2%）は、これらのニーズが満たされた上に必要とされる支援であることがうかがわれる。

27

http://www.ncnp.go.jp/nimh/pdf/kenkyu56.pdf

http://www.ncnp.go.jp/nimh/pdf/kenkyu56.pdf

http://www.ncnp.go.jp/nimh/seijin/pg25.html


DA Belief of Deterrence.UQ

1. Japan has retained the death penalty and protect citizens from homicide with its responsibility.

2. There is a belief of deterrent power for murder with simple reason and simple data.Simple reason is no one will not be executed. Simple data is the increased homicide rate in abolitionist countries. The data was cited by background materials at study meeting about death penalty in Japanese Ministry of Justice. http://www.moj.go.jp/keiji1/keiji12_00048.htmlIn U.K., the death penalty is abolished in 1967. From this year, homicide rate stably increased 7.3 to 11.1 in decade. In French, the death penalty is abolished in 1972. Similarly, homicide rate increased 2.68 to 4.72 in two decades.

3. Then, the Council of scientists issued we can say nothing about deterrence power at scientific level.The NATIONAL ACHADEMIES '12/ Deterrence And The Death Penaltyhttp://sites.nationalacademies.org/dbasse/claj/deterrence_and_death_penalty/The committee concludes that research to date is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates. Therefore, thesestudies should not be used to inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the death penalty on homicide. Claims that research demonstrates that capital punishment decreases or increases the homicide rate or has no effect on it should not influence policy judgments about capital punishment.

4. We should not take any political decision with such a scientific labyrinth.5. Keeping status quo is best.Link

1. Abolishing Death penalty is taken with risk to expose citizens getting murdered.Imp

1. Someone will get murdered.2. AP, any homicide will be engaged with abolishing the death penalty. It haunt

citizens like a cancer by radiation.3. Responsibility of policy maker is thrown away.

28

http://sites.nationalacademies.org/dbasse/claj/deterrence_and_death_penalty/

http://www.moj.go.jp/keiji1/keiji12_00048.html


4. Japan should not be that.

おまけ

Merriam-Webster.com '13http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epocheEpoche: suspension of judgment: a in ancient skepticism : the act of refraining from any conclusion for or against anything as the decisive step for the attainment of ataraxy

29

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epoche


30


31


CP(MR)Severe penalty

MandateChange the punishment to only death in the article 199 of Penal Code.

Article 199(Homicide) A person who kills another shall be punished by the death penalty or imprisonment with work for life or for a definite term of not less than 5 years.

We delete every word after the words “death penalty” in this article.

CompetitivenessM/E is clear.Time permutation cannot be held until plan denies deterrence effect in this superiority.

Superiority 1. It get strong deterrence for murder because of fear for clear possibility of death penalty.

2. Especially it is effective for deliberate crime. Because they count the degree of punishment before the committing crime.

http://www.news.com.au/world-news/mandatory-death-penalty-upheld/story-fndir2ev-1226516979205Deputy Prime minister Theo said in AFP news '12

Q) For drugs, "we know that the mandatory death penalty has a deterrent effect because drug traffickers deliberately try to keep the amounts they carry to below the capital punishment threshold", he said.(UQ

3. In Japan, about 40% of homicide is deliberate.According to crime report form Ministry of Justice '10, 39.5% of homicide is deliberate.http://hakusyo1.moj.go.jp/jp/57/nfm/n_57_2_7_2_1_1.html - h0702010102http://hakusyo1.moj.go.jp/jp/57/nfm/n_57_2_7_2_1_1.html#h0702010102

32

http://hakusyo1.moj.go.jp/jp/57/nfm/n_57_2_7_2_1_1.html#h0702010102

http://hakusyo1.moj.go.jp/jp/57/nfm/n_57_2_7_2_1_1.html#h0702010102

http://www.news.com.au/world-news/mandatory-death-penalty-upheld/story-fndir2ev-1226516979205

http://www.news.com.au/world-news/mandatory-death-penalty-upheld/story-fndir2ev-1226516979205


33


CP You Only Live Twice

Mandate 1. For first conviction, as same as plan.2. Give the penal code item of recidivism.3. This item is that give only death penalty for recidivism of homicide.

SuperiorityIf rehabilitation can function completely, there is no difference with plan.If not, This CP insure to protect citizens from helpless criminal.

I guess this argument will be “It never rains but it pours. “ vs. “Third time lucky. “.

34


VS AD3 CostMR Issue some much government bond for necessary.

Feasibility If it is necessary, the cost is granted and bond is issued.And it is empirically proven by SQ itself.

Although in severe cost cutting mood, great amount of bond is issued for necessary.Reuters '12 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/27/us-japan-economy-idUSBRE8BQ03I20121227Japan's previous government limited new bond issuance each fiscal year to 44 trillion yen ($514 billion) as a first step to prevent Japan's debt burden, the worst among major economies, from worsening further.

WorkabilityAs much as the meaning of the death penalty.

35

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/27/us-japan-economy-idUSBRE8BQ03I20121227

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/27/us-japan-economy-idUSBRE8BQ03I20121227


VS increasing police is more effectiveIf cost of death penalty has more effective way to get crime prevention, how much cost and this workability have to be shown. Especially comparison in terms of cost-effectiveness must be needed.As long as they cannot show that, cost argument does not have any significance. Money is just money. Moreover we cannot know how much. In short, Japan should not make politic decision for money without calculation. 警視庁警察白書 '12http://www.npa.go.jp/hakusyo/h24/youyakuban/youyakubann.pdfIn 2012, total amount of police strength is 293,459. 7,736 of them are the strength of National Police Agency and 285,723 are the local police force. 平成 24 年度の警察職員の定員は総数 29万 3,459 人であり、このうち 7，736 人が警察庁の定員、28万 5，723 人が都道府県

警察の定員である。

Deterrent power of police also cannot be seen.Ph. D. Jan M. Chaiken '76http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2008/P5735.pdfThis review indicate that most studies are consistent with the view that a substantial increase in police activity will reduce crime for a period of time, but in real world increases in police manpower tend to follow increases in crime. The magnitude and duration of deterrence effects are essentially unknown.

M/O There is no clear reason to deterrent effect of increasing police manpower .PhD. Gary Kleck and J.C. Barnes, PhD 2010http://cad.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/10/09/0011128710382263.abstractDoes increasing police strength deter more crime? Some studies have found apparent negative effects of police manpower levels on crime rates, and the most common explanation of such findings is that greater police strength increases perceptions of arrest risk, thus reducing crime via general deterrence mechanisms. The authors directly tested this hypothesis by estimating the association between survey respondents’ perceptions of arrest risk and the level of police strength prevailing in the counties where they live. No relationship between the number of police officers per capita and perceptions of the risk of arrest was found, suggesting that increases in police manpower will not increase general deterrent effects and decreases will not reduce these effects. The authors also considered the possibility that police manpower levels influence the number of criminals incarcerated, and thus affect crime rates via the incapacitative effects of incarceration, but concluded that such an effect is

36

http://cad.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/10/09/0011128710382263.abstract

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2008/P5735.pdf

http://www.npa.go.jp/hakusyo/h24/youyakuban/youyakubann.pdf


unlikely. These findings point to a need to reconsider previous interpretations of findings as supportive of a deterrent effect of increased police manpower on crime rates.

37