Tomoko Takemura - The Yomiuri Shimbun

JAPAN: Should courts always spare minors the death penalty?

"I found myself a totally helpless man. I could neither protect nor avenge my family. Furthermore, the judiciary failed to respect my feelings," said Hiroshi Motomura of Hikari, Yamaguchi Prefecture, about a ruling by the Hiroshima High Court on March 14 that spared a man convicted of murdering his wife and daughter the death penalty because he was a minor at the time of the crime.

 The high court rejected the prosecutors' demand for handing down the death sentence to the man, who committed the murder 3 years ago when he was 18 years old, and upheld a life sentence handed down by the Yamaguchi District Court. The convict, now 20, whose name is being withheld because he was a minor at the time of the crime, broke into Motomura's home in Hikari in April 1999, raped and strangled his 23-year-old wife and strangled his 11-month-old daughter.

 The prosecutors sought the death penalty for the man, but the Yamaguchi District Court disagreed, sentencing him to life imprisonment and saying that he was a minor at the time of the crime and could be rehabilitated. The prosecutors appealed the case to the Hiroshima High Court, asking it to overturn the district court's judgment.

 Hearings in both courts focused on the following questions:

 -- Should the death penalty be applied to a man who committed a vicious crime when he was 18 years old?

 -- Can someone who committed a crime at the age of 18 be rehabilitated?

 -- Even if he can be rehabilitated, can the feelings of his victims be ignored? Which is more important--the convict's rehabilitation or crime victims' feelings?

 According to Amnesty International's 1999 report, more than 105 countries or regions have abolished the death penalty or withheld carrying out death sentences for the past 10 years or longer. Abolishing the death penalty is becoming a global trend.

 In Japan, however, there have been eight cases in which minors received the death sentences as final verdicts during the past 35 years.

 The Supreme Court's 1983 ruling on a string of murders committed in 1968 by Norio Nagayama, then 19, has become the yardstick for giving the death penalty to a minor. Nagayama, a cafeteria waiter, stole a gun from a U.S. military base and shot four people to death in a month.

 During Nagayama's trial, opinions among legal experts were divided on whether he should receive the death penalty. One group suggested that the death penalty should have been avoided because Nagayama was 19 and still a minor at the time. But the other group insisted that even if he was a minor, he should be subjected to the death penalty as an exception because the crimes he committed were particularly vicious.

 The Supreme Court upheld lower court's rulings on Nagayama's death sentence on the ground that he committed vicious crimes. Nagayama was executed in 1997 at the age of 48, almost 30 years after his crimes.

 In its ruling on the case, the Supreme Court gave four factors that it felt should be considered when deciding whether to apply the death penalty to a minor: the viciousness of offense, the criminal's motive, the number of victims in the crime and the feelings of the victims' family members.

 Japanese legal experts had previously emphasized the importance of rehabilitating criminals, but the feelings of people who suffered from crimes were hardly taken into consideration by the judiciary. The Supreme Court ruling on Nagayama's case became a yardstick for giving the death penalty to a minor, taking into account the feelings of victims' family for the 1st time.

 Throughout the Hikari murder trial, Motomura campaigned to raise public awareness about crime victims such as himself. His activities bore fruit and led to the enactment of a law to protect crime victims that allows them to make copies of trial records. The Criminal Procedure Code was also revised, allowing victims' family members to speak in court. Thus, a tragic sacrifice brought about an important legal change.

 The Hikari murder case boils down to the question of whether an 18-year-old youth should be given the death penalty.

 The United States applies the death penalty to minors quite often, even to 16- or 17-year-old youths, because the country finds it necessary to severely punish vicious juvenile crimes, which are sharply increasing.

 Vicious crimes committed by minors are also increasing in Japan, resulting in the Juvenile Law being revised last year. The revised law provided for the stricter punishment of juvenile criminals, including lowering of the age of minors to be punished under the Criminal Law.

 Japanese youths these days are said to be more immature than their U.S. counterparts. Many middle schools in Japan do not give students the right to choose their own clothes and hairstyles. Accordingly, some legal experts assert that it is unreasonable to let such childish teenagers assume adult responsibilities after committing a crime. This view may have some merit.

 The ruling coalition parties have begun a study on the advisability of introducing lifetime imprisonment for vicious criminals. Lifetime imprisonment is different from the currently practiced life imprisonment, in that the latter, in most cases, allows a criminal to eventually leave prison. Some legal experts believe that lifetime imprisonment would be as effective as the death penalty in deterring crimes.

 Before the Hiroshima High Court handed down its ruling on the Hikari murder case, Motomura had insisted that arguments on the advisability of the death penalty be conducted in the Diet, not in court.

 The Hiroshima High Court verdict has triggered a national debate on issues related to the death penalty for minors, particularly on whether the existing rehabilitation measures are sufficient and how to balance the rehabilitation of juvenile criminals and the feelings of the families of crime victims.