Old-Fashioned or a Way of Democracy as integrity of opinions?
“The Tokyo High Court on Monday rejected a defense appeal of the death sentence for Aum Shinrikyo founder Chizuo Matsumoto. The court ruled that his lawyers missed a deadline for submitting the appeals documents. The decision could seal Matsumoto's fate. He was sentenced to death by the Tokyo District Court in February 2004 on murder and other charges that left 27 people dead. His crimes include orchestrating the 1995 sarin gas attack in Tokyo that killed 12. (From The Asahi Shimbun web version)”
The most famous or notorious religious leader, Chizuo Matsumoto is on the death row. He is the one who humiliated mostly the fame and reputation of not only his but any other Japanese religions. Having been imprisoned, he never shows apology to those who are injured by his believers, nor does he admit the crimes. He will surely be hung to death.
Japan continues to practice the capital punishment. The use of death penalty is, in a sense, a way to console victims or family of victims. It cannot be tolerable for people injured that the person who did it continues to live in a cell. Even the duration of sentence is for good, some victims who terribly damaged still wish to see the one executed. That is a sentiment which every human being has, and Japan has been met the wish. Conditions of the practice of death penalty lie in a way to take responsibility for mistakes or misdeeds, namely by injuring or killing the self. Cutting abdomen, Seppuku, is a typical example. Or when Samurai showed his inferiority to his winner, he cut his ring finger as he no longer enabled to grasp his sword. They were solutions for misdemeanor and have been formed the foundation of national perspectives. Japanese people do not question so much about the death penalty, because historically people have taken the ways for granted.
However execution itself is on decay within an international flow of advocating human rights. It is another approach to criminals that they should be reconsidered as human beings who still can regret their crimes and change themselves morally. Mercy based on Christianity does try to get rid of death penalty and offer opportunity to those who made crimes. For instance, in Sweden, death punishment is banned. 20-year imprisonment is utmost the heaviest penalty on criminals. Above all inmates can receive education and training for working inside of jail. Such lenient system is based on a social ideology; punish is not punish but care. There are, as a matter of course, critics that the punishment is too generous to relieve sentiments and damages victims had, but the emotions are sealed. Another example is the USA. Some US states start to reconsider death sentences to those who are mentally ill or disordered. Prior to crimes or even after the crimes, the reconsidering is taken place whether the criminals are mentally retardated. For those who admitted mental retardation, the deterrence of death sentence is concluded. In addition Amnesty International, which I’m currently working as apprentice, urges the ban of capital punishment to any kinds of crimes. They are radical in idea, but it is not a negligible fact that the organization is playing a pivotal role to deter executions in the world.
What mentioned above is the international flow. The problem is whoever in Japan opposes to the execution of Chizuo Matsumoto. It is antiquated nowadays to do what Amnesty International calls “state-kill”. However, scrutinizing what he did and recollecting the impact and seriousness which he brought to the society, it is unavoidable that he is going to be state-killed. If he were a revolutionist who tried to demolish Japanese society and rebuilt it from scratch with thousands of sacrifices, some who reacted his belief would plea forgiveness to the political criminal. The reality is that the society disliked the religion and the every aspect was denied and destined to destroy. People looked askance at those who believe his religion; some believers were segregated. What the guru’s daughters were not accepted to entrance of a school indicates most notably how cold society is toward Aum Shinrikyo. The case indeed violated human rights, but did someone honestly criticize the unfair admissions? Or, is there any organization or movement to fight against the social injustice to Aum Shinrikyo? The answer is no, because that is the biggest flow circulating inside of Japanese society. It is an ugly figure of democracy that integrity of opinions and the only option finally arrives at the admittance of death.
The most famous or notorious religious leader, Chizuo Matsumoto is on the death row. He is the one who humiliated mostly the fame and reputation of not only his but any other Japanese religions. Having been imprisoned, he never shows apology to those who are injured by his believers, nor does he admit the crimes. He will surely be hung to death.
Japan continues to practice the capital punishment. The use of death penalty is, in a sense, a way to console victims or family of victims. It cannot be tolerable for people injured that the person who did it continues to live in a cell. Even the duration of sentence is for good, some victims who terribly damaged still wish to see the one executed. That is a sentiment which every human being has, and Japan has been met the wish. Conditions of the practice of death penalty lie in a way to take responsibility for mistakes or misdeeds, namely by injuring or killing the self. Cutting abdomen, Seppuku, is a typical example. Or when Samurai showed his inferiority to his winner, he cut his ring finger as he no longer enabled to grasp his sword. They were solutions for misdemeanor and have been formed the foundation of national perspectives. Japanese people do not question so much about the death penalty, because historically people have taken the ways for granted.
However execution itself is on decay within an international flow of advocating human rights. It is another approach to criminals that they should be reconsidered as human beings who still can regret their crimes and change themselves morally. Mercy based on Christianity does try to get rid of death penalty and offer opportunity to those who made crimes. For instance, in Sweden, death punishment is banned. 20-year imprisonment is utmost the heaviest penalty on criminals. Above all inmates can receive education and training for working inside of jail. Such lenient system is based on a social ideology; punish is not punish but care. There are, as a matter of course, critics that the punishment is too generous to relieve sentiments and damages victims had, but the emotions are sealed. Another example is the USA. Some US states start to reconsider death sentences to those who are mentally ill or disordered. Prior to crimes or even after the crimes, the reconsidering is taken place whether the criminals are mentally retardated. For those who admitted mental retardation, the deterrence of death sentence is concluded. In addition Amnesty International, which I’m currently working as apprentice, urges the ban of capital punishment to any kinds of crimes. They are radical in idea, but it is not a negligible fact that the organization is playing a pivotal role to deter executions in the world.
What mentioned above is the international flow. The problem is whoever in Japan opposes to the execution of Chizuo Matsumoto. It is antiquated nowadays to do what Amnesty International calls “state-kill”. However, scrutinizing what he did and recollecting the impact and seriousness which he brought to the society, it is unavoidable that he is going to be state-killed. If he were a revolutionist who tried to demolish Japanese society and rebuilt it from scratch with thousands of sacrifices, some who reacted his belief would plea forgiveness to the political criminal. The reality is that the society disliked the religion and the every aspect was denied and destined to destroy. People looked askance at those who believe his religion; some believers were segregated. What the guru’s daughters were not accepted to entrance of a school indicates most notably how cold society is toward Aum Shinrikyo. The case indeed violated human rights, but did someone honestly criticize the unfair admissions? Or, is there any organization or movement to fight against the social injustice to Aum Shinrikyo? The answer is no, because that is the biggest flow circulating inside of Japanese society. It is an ugly figure of democracy that integrity of opinions and the only option finally arrives at the admittance of death.
