However one feels about the death penalty, it's difficult to argue that its application in Japan isn't arbitrary. Last week, former Justice Minister Hideo Hiraoka publicly denounced his successor Toshio Ogawa's decision to have three death row inmates hanged on March 29, saying that the government needs to discuss capital punishment before continuing with executions. The fact that Hiraoka on principle did not sign any death warrants during his tenure while Ogawa, in accordance with a very different set of values, approved three soon after assuming office shows that choices regarding life and death are governed more by personal whim than by guidelines. Don't forget, these two guys belong to the same political party.
At the symposium where Hiraoka made his remarks, the secretary general of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations called for a change in judicial rules in relation to the lay judge system. At present, a death sentence can be delivered if the majority of the nine judges — six nonprofessionals and three professionals — decide in favor of it and if one of the majority is a professional. The JFBA, which is basically against capital punishment, says that death sentences should only be validated if the decision is unanimous.
These contentious matters were indirectly addressed by the recent trial in Saitama District Court of Kanae Kijima, who was convicted of killing three men and sentenced to hang. The trial lasted 100 days, making it the longest since the lay judge system started two years ago. The prosecution presented only circumstantial evidence, but what made the case particularly difficult was the background.