Suzuki 1

Junko Suzuki
Professor Smith
Theme Writing
4 November 2008
The Death Penalty and the Media in Japan:
Lack of Information and Understanding in the Japanese Public
Thesis Statement:
The public support for the death penalty should not be regarded as a reason to maintain the
death penalty because the Ministry of Justice and the Japanese newspapers do not sufficiently
inform the public basic fact related to the death penalty.
Introduction
A. Background information
1. countries which abolish or maintain death penalty
B. Thesis Statement
What ministry of justice announce death penalty
A. Inmate’s name and place where execution is carried out
B. Before 1998
C. Before 1996
What Japanese newspapers report death penalty
A. Analysis of one newspaper article
1. criticism of execution by groups opposing death penalty
2. inmate’s life in jail
B. The word “execution” and “hanging”
Image that public and newspapers have of victims
A. Public assumption: Every survivor hopes death penalty
B. Newspapers’ assumption: as well as public image
Survivors’ opinions about death penalty
A. Support for death penalty
B. Opposition to death penalty
1. some survivors who cannot ease their hatred
Conclusion
 Suzuki 2

The Death Penalty and the Media in Japan:

Lack of Information and Understanding in the Japanese Public
Abstract
Japan imposes capital punishment for certain crimes. One of the reasons is the strong
public support for it. However, because both Ministry of Justice and the Japanese newspapers
do not report the death penalty much to the public, the public does not know about the death
penalty. Therefore, the public support for the death penalty should not be regarded as a
reason to maintain the death penalty. Firstly, this paper analyses what information the
Japanese government releases about the death penalty. Secondly, what the Japanese
newspapers report is reviewed. Thirdly, this paper shows what kind of image that the public
and the Japanese newspapers have of the bereaved. Finally, this paper looks at the opinions
the survivors actually have about the death penalty.
Introduction
According to Amnesty International, an international organization which works “to
protect human rights worldwide,” one hundred and twenty-two countries and territories have
abolished the death penalty in law and practice, and seventy-four countries and territories
have maintained it (Amnesty). Japan is one of the countries which has maintained the death
penalty. On September 27, 2004, the Minister for Justice Chieko Noono told the press that it
was “difficult” to abolish the death penalty at present because the majority of the Japanese
public approved it (Ministry of Justice). The evidence of this “strong public support for the
death penalty” is the public opinion polls conducted by the Cabinet Office. The latest poll
was conducted in 2004. As Noono explained, approximately eighty-one percent of
respondents had thought “the death penalty was necessary through unavoidable
circumstances” and only six percent had thought “the death penalty should be abolished in
any case” (Cabinet Office [2004]). However, the public support for the death penalty should
not be regarded as a reason to maintain the death penalty because the Ministry of Justice and
the Japanese newspapers do not sufficiently inform the Japanese public of the basic facts
related to the death penalty. This paper will first describe what the Ministry of Justice
actually announces about the death penalty. Next, what the Japanese newspapers report
about the death penalty to the public will be reviewed. Thirdly, this paper will examine what
the majority of the public and the newspapers think of the murder victim’s families. Finally,
this paper will analyze some survivors’ opinions both for and against the death penalty.
What Information the Ministry of Justice Reveals about the Death Penalty
 Suzuki 3

The ministry of Justice of Japan announces little about the death penalty. The Japan
Times on November 5, 1998, reported that the Ministry of Justice would begin to announce
executions after they were carried out (“State Debating”). According to this article, the
Minister of Justice Shozaburo Nakamura told the press that this was because “the public
should know about executions” (“State Debating”). However, what the Ministry of Justice
makes public is limited to the fact of execution(s) and number(s) being executed. The Japan
Times on November 20, 1998, quoted a paper released by the Ministry which simply says,
“[The Ministry] executed death row inmates and the places where they are executed are never
announced by the Ministry.” This is because, as Nakamura explained, the Ministry does not
want to violate the privacy of the victim’s family and the sources close to the executed inmate
(“Shikei Shikkoku”). Therefore, if the media wants to know the name(s) and place(s), it asks
the informed sources, such as human rights groups and judiciary sources, or these informed
sources report to the media.
What is more, until December 1996, the Ministry of Justice declined to publicly
acknowledge and make any comments on executions (“Minister Goes”) about the fact of the
execution, even though it was the Ministers who signed the mandate to execute the prisoners.
According to the Japan Times on December 2, 1994, one Chief Cabinet Secretary explained
the reason for not making public the execution is to protect the privacy of the victim’s
families (“Two Hanged”), which is as same as Nakamura’s explanation in 1998. Therefore,
before December 1996, the only way for media to know anything about the execution was the
report from the informed sources which got the execution news from the family and lawyer
of the inmate executed. What can be stressed here is that, even though the Japanese penal
code legislated the death penalty only about one hundred years ago in 1908 (Hara 63), it was
ten years ago in 1996 when the Ministry of Justice started to publicly acknowledge
executions. Nevertheless, the information that the Ministry gives to the public is still little.
What Japanese Newspapers Report about Executions and the Death Penalty
It is not only the Ministry of Justice but also the Japanese newspapers that do not
report much about the death penalty. Here is an article quoted from the Japan times on
September 17, 2005.
“A policeman convicted of double-murder was hanged Friday
[…], sources said. […] Susumu Kitagawa, 58, was convicted of
robbing, raping and murdering a girl in Chiba Prefecture in
1983 […]. Kitagawa was the eighth inmate executed since
Prime Minister Juichiro Koizumi took office in April 2001. The
 Suzuki 4

execution was the first signed by Chieko Noono […]. The

Supreme Court in February 2000 rejected Kitagawa’s appeal of
his sentence. […] Amnesty International Japan criticized
Friday’s execution[…].” (“Policeman”)
If one reviews the Japanese newspapers such as Asahi Shimbun, The Japan
Times, Mainichi Shinbun and Yomiuri Shinbun, one finds that this is a typical
and routine article about the death penalty. What the article mentions is the
inmate’s name and crime (such as “Kitagawa” and “convicted of robbing”);
the turn and the number of executions under the Koizumi’s administration
(“eighth inmate executed”); the finalized death sentence (“Supreme Court
rejected Kitagawa’s appeal”); and the criticism of the execution. There are two
significant omissions to point out. Firstly, although the typical article about the
death penalty often mentions the criticism of execution by some groups
opposing the death penalty, this does not mean that the newspapers oppose the
death penalty. Specifically, the Japanese newspapers often show both
arguments on controversial topic to report “fairly” (Mori and Morisu 16).
What is bad, because this is a “routine” article, is that the Japanese
newspapers do not often report any further about the death penalty or the
execution after the execution day. Secondly, the typical article about the death
penalty does not describe anything about the death row inmate’s life in jail.
What the inmate did and thought in jail — the inmate might have regretted
what his or her acts—is not often described in the article except for the ones
who drew public attention by publishing novels, for example. In addition,
because both the crime that Kitagawa committed and the fact that his appeal
was rejected by the Supreme Court are written in the article, some readers
would think that Kitagawa deserved the death penalty, without considering
why he had committed crimes.
Furthermore, another important thing to mention is that the
newspapers written in Japanese do not use the word “hanging” (koushukei in
Japanese). Only The Japan Times uses “hanging.” Instead, the newspapers in
Japanese often use “execution” (shikei shikkou in Japanese), which is more
abstract word that “hanging.” The newspapers do not explain the reason
specifically why they prefer the word “execution” to “hanging.” Some
newspapers such as Asahi Shimbun and Yomiuri Shimbun publish their
 Suzuki 5

policies on reporting the news, however, one cannot find any explanation for
avoiding the word “hanging.” For example, what Asahi Shimbun mentions the
death penalty is limited to that the name of the death row inmate should be
revealed because the public has an interest in the death penalty (Asahi 73). As
a result of the fact that the newspapers in Japanese use the abstract word
“execution,” it is hard for the majority of the public to know and understand
the death penalty sufficiently. For instance, Tatsuya Mori believes that most
Japanese people think the death penalty is carried out by the electric chair
(Mori and Morisu 165). All in all, the Japanese newspapers report
inadequately the death penalty to the public.
Image that Public and Newspapers Have of Victims
Both the majority of the public and the Japanese newspapers simply
look at the feelings of one side—victim’s families—and misunderstand them.
Specifically, many Japanese and the newspapers assume that every survivor
hopes the murderer will be executed (Harada 138) and the survivor will feel
satisfied and relieved after the execution. According to the public opinion poll
conducted by the cabinet Office in 2004, 50 percent of the respondents who
support the death penalty think that the bereaved will not able to ease their
hatred toward the murderers if the death penalty were to be abolished (Cabinet
Office [2004]. This percentage of the people who think so has been increasing
since 1989. Four polls were conducted between 1989 and 2004. In the poll in
1989, 39% (Cabinet [1989]), in 1994, 40% (Cabinet [1994]), in 1999, 48%
(Cabinet [1999]) of people who support the death penalty think that the
victims would not be satisfied with the abolishment of the death penalty. That
is to say, one of the reasons for many Japanese to support the death penalty is
the torture the victims’ relatives suffer.
In addition, the Japanese newspapers think similarly that the bereaved
are those who support the death penalty. The Japan Times reports on August
29, 2003 that one parent of the murdered children tells the media that “it is
only natural that he [Mamoru Takuma, who killed eight children and was
sentenced to death by Osaka District Court on August 28, 2003] was given the
death sentence” (“Osaka Massacre”). After Takuma was executed on
September 14, 2004, the next day The Japan Times quotes the comment by the
 Suzuki 6

victim’s relatives that they wish to see Takuma die suffering “just like his prey
[murdered eight children]” (“Takuma Hangs”).
Survivors’ Opinions about Death Penalty
As shown above, it is true that some survivors support the death
penalty, however, this does not mean that every survivor supports it. Kaori
Sakagami criticizes the media for selecting only those who support the death
penalty (71). Therefore, this paper will examine two points. Firstly, some
survivors who do not support the death penalty will be introduced. Secondly,
although many Japanese people think that “the bereaved will not be able to
ease their hatred toward the murderers if the death penalty were to be
abolished,” this paper will discuss whether the death penalty helps the
survivors ease their hatred.
First, as Scott Turow puts the question, “do survivors want the killer to
die? Not universally” (49). Some survivors do not support the death penalty.
Here are some examples. One American victim’s brother admits that right
after his sister was murdered, he thought the murderers deserved to die and if
possible, he wanted to kill them with his own hands (King 64). However,
several years after his sister’s death, he read the Bible and “felt totally
different” (King 66). Since then, he met and wrote some letters to a woman in
jail who killed his sister. At last, he came to oppose the death penalty (King
70). Nevertheless, after the second trial he met the murderer in jail four times,
and finally came to want the suspension of the execution of this murder, and
opposed the death penalty (Harada 68). As can be seen, though the majority of
the survivors would not think of opposing the death penalty, there are some
victims who oppose it.
Secondly, while some victim’s families are able to diminish their
hatred and sadness after the execution (Wilson 92), others are not. As an
example, one American victim’s family member who watched the execution
says, “I thought I would feel satisfied, but I don't” (Turow 52). The man who
lost his brother says that the execution has not diminished his anger and hatred
toward the murderers at all (Harada 71). In summary, while many Japanese
and the newspapers would assume that the most bereaved supports the death
penalty, their assumption is somewhat a bias against the bereaved.
Conclusion
 Suzuki 7

The French philosopher Pierre Bourdieu observes, “the politician is

someone who says ‘God is on our side.’” The modern equivalent of this “’God
is on our side’” is “’the public opinion is on our side’” (150). Nevertheless,
the public as “God” does not get much information and explanation of the
death penalty from both the Ministry of Justice and the Japanese newspapers.
Therefore, the public does not know and understand sufficiently both the
death penalty and the murder victim’s family. If the Japanese government
continues to regard the public support for the death penalty as a reason to
maintain the death penalty, more information needs to be disclosed and the
Japanese newspapers should report the death penalty more to the public.
 Suzuki 8

Works Cited
Amnesty International. Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty. 18 Feb. 2006
<http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng>.
Bourdier, Pierre. Sociology in Question. Trans. Richard Nice. London: SAGE
Publications LTD, 1993.
Cabinet Office. Public Opinion Polls about the Crime and the Punishment In
the First Year of the Heisei Era (1989). 18 Feb. 2006
<http://www8.cao.go.jp/survey/h01/H01-06-01-06.html>.
--- Public Opinion Polls about the Basic Legal System in the Sixth Year of the
Heisei Era (in 1994). 18 Feb. 2006
<http://www8.cao.go.j/survey/h06/index-h06.html>.
--- Public Opinion Polls about the Basic Legal System in the Eleventh Year
of the Heisei Era (in 2004). 18 Feb. 2006
<http://www8.cao.go.jp/survey/h16/h16-houseido/index.html>
Hara, Yuji. Naze “Shikei” wa Kakusarerunoka? [Why is “the death penalty”
kept hidden?]. Tokyo: Takarajimasha, 2001.
Harada, Masaharu. “Otouto wo Koroshita Kagaisha to Boku.” Gendai Shisou
Mar. 2004: 64-71.
“Jiken no Shuzai to Houdou” Henshuu Iinkai. Jiken no Shuzai to Houdou.
Tokyo: Asahi Shimbunsha, 2005.
King, Rachel. Don’t kill in Our Names:Families of Murder Victims Speak Out
Against the Death Penalty. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press,
2003.
“Minister Goes Public with Executions.” Japan Times [Tokyo] 25 Dec. 1996:
2 Ministry of Justice. A Summary of a Conference After the Justice
Minister Chieko Noono Attended the Office for the First Time. 18 Feb.
2006. <http://www.moj.go.jp/SPEECH/POINT/sp040927-01.html>.
“Ministry Says Three Convicts Were Hanged.” Japan Times [Tokyo] 20 Nov.
1998: 1-2
Mori, Tatsuya, and Morisu, Hiroshi. Gorinjyu Media- Shitsumonshinai
Masukomi To Hitoride Kangaenai Nihonjin [Dying Media- The media
which never asks question and Japanese who never thinks by
themselves]. Tokyo: Shueisha, 2005.
 Suzuki 9

“Osaka Massacre Trial: School Security Remains a Pending Issue.” Japan

Times [Tokyo] 29 Aug. 2003: 2
“Policeman Who Murdered Two Women Hanged in Osaka.” Japan Times
[Tokyo] 17 Sept. 2005:1
Sakagami, Kaori. “’Higaisha’ no Koe wo Kiku toiukoto.” Gendai Shisou Mar.
2004: 72-83.
“Shikei Shikkou wo Kouhyoue-Honsho Hyoumei, Shimei, Bashowo Nozoki
[Execution are going to be announced- The Minister says, except who
and where]. Asahi Shimbun[ Tokyo] 4 Nov. 1998: 16
“State Debating Execution Notices.” Japan Times [Tokyo] 5 Nov. 1998: 1
“Takuma Hangs for Massacre of Eight Kids at Osaka School.” Japan
Times [Tokyo] 15 Sep. 2004: 1
Turow, Scott. Ultimate Punishment- A Lawyer’s Reflections on Dealing with
the Death Penalty. New York: Picador, 2003.
“Two Hanged in First Executions in a Year.” Japan Times [Tokyo] 2 Dec.
1994: 1
Willson, Holly. “A Family’s Support of the Death Penalty.” Society’s Final
Solution: A History and Discussion of the Death Penalty. Ed. Laura E.
Randa. Maryland: University Press of America, Inc., 1997.