今日のボヤキ 2/6
今日のボヤキは日本の死刑制度についてです。
国連人権理事会の作業部会は３日、日本の人権状況に関する定期審査で、死刑廃止など３００件の勧告を盛り込んだ報告書を採択した。ただ、勧告は各国の意見を反映したものにすぎず、作業部会としては内容を承認していない。
勧告では、フランスやドイツが死刑の廃止・停止を求めたほか、中国が「侵略の歴史を直視し、反省する」よう主張。北朝鮮は「ヘイトスピーチ（憎悪表現）や人種差別に基づく犯罪を禁止する法律の制定」を訴えた。
日本は世界的に見てもまれな例であり、世界195か国のうち、7割は死刑を廃止または停止しており、実際に死刑を執行しているのは54か国のみ。
・経済協力開発機構（OECD）38か国のうち、死刑制度があるのは米国・韓国・日本のみ。米国は半分の州で廃止または停止し、韓国は1997年を最後に執行していない。
・日本が犯罪人引渡条約を締結している相手は上記の米国・韓国のみ。死刑制度の存在が、他の国と条約締結できない一因ではないかと言われている。
以下は内閣府による死刑制度への意識調査の結果です。
（１） 死刑制度の存廃
死刑制度に関して，「どんな場合でも死刑は廃止すべきである」，「場合によっては死刑もやむを得ない」という意見があるが，どちらの意見に賛成か聞いたところ，「どんな場合でも死刑は廃止すべきである」と答えた者の割合が5.7％，「場合によっては死刑もやむを得ない」と答えた者の割合が85.6％となっている。
前回の調査結果と比較してみると，「場合によっては死刑もやむを得ない」（81.4％→85.6％）と答えた者の割合が上昇している。ア 死刑制度を廃止する理由
死刑制度に関して，「どんな場合でも死刑は廃止すべきである」と答えた者（111人）に，その理由を聞いたところ，「生かしておいて罪の償いをさせた方がよい」を挙げた者の割合が55.9％，「裁判に誤りがあったとき，死刑にしてしまうと取り返しがつかない」を挙げた者の割合が43.2％，「国家であっても人を殺すことは許されない」を挙げた者の割合が42.3％，「人を殺すことは刑罰であっても人道に反し，野蛮である」を挙げた者の割合が30.6％，「死刑を廃止しても，そのために凶悪な犯罪が増加するとは思わない」を挙げた者の割合が29.7％，「凶悪な犯罪を犯した者でも，更生の可能性がある」を挙げた者の割合が18.9％などの順となっている。（複数回答）
イ 即時死刑廃止か，いずれ死刑廃止か
死刑制度に関して，「どんな場合でも死刑は廃止すべきである」と答えた者（111人）に，死刑を廃止する場合には，すぐに全面的に廃止するのがよいと思うか，それともだんだんに死刑を減らしていって，いずれ全面的に廃止する方がよいと思うか聞いたところ，「すぐに，全面的に廃止する」と答えた者の割合が35.1％，「だんだん死刑を減らしていき，いずれ全面的に廃止する」と答えた者の割合が63.1％となっている。
ウ 死刑制度を存置する理由
死刑制度に関して，「場合によっては死刑もやむを得ない」と答えた者（1,665人）に，その理由を聞いたところ，「死刑を廃止すれば，被害を受けた人やその家族の気持ちがおさまらない」を挙げた者の割合が54.1％，「凶悪な犯罪は命をもって償うべきだ」を挙げた者の割合が53.2％，「死刑を廃止すれば，凶悪な犯罪が増える」を挙げた者の割合が51.5％と高く，以下，「凶悪な犯罪を犯す人は生かしておくと，また同じような犯罪を犯す危険がある」（41.7％）などの順となっている。（複数回答）
前回の調査結果と比較してみると，「死刑を廃止すれば，被害を受けた人やその家族の気持ちがおさまらない」（50.7％→54.1％）を挙げた者の割合が上昇している。
都市規模別に見ると，「死刑を廃止すれば，被害を受けた人やその家族の気持ちがおさまらない」，「死刑を廃止すれば，凶悪な犯罪が増える」を挙げた者の割合は小都市で高くなっている。
性別に見ると，大きな差異は見られない。
年齢別に見ると，「凶悪な犯罪は命をもって償うべきだ」を挙げた者の割合は70歳以上で高くなっている。
この結果からは国民は死刑制度に対しておおむね賛成的であると言えそうです。しかしながら、この両意見の争点はやはり”贖罪”がどのような形であるべきかということです。凶悪な犯罪者に対して死をもって償わせるのか、その死は贖罪にはならないとするかということです。賛成派の遺族の気持ちが収まらないという意見も分かりますし、反対派の冤罪の場合は取り返しのつかない事になると言う意見も分かります。
ただ、死刑執行人には多大なる精神的負荷がかかります。私達の税金で犯罪者を死ぬまで生かすのもなぁ、、なんて考えたりしますが、いっそのこと無人島に島流しの方が得策なのでは、、？！と思いたくもなるのですが、皆さんはどうでしょうか。
English edition
Today's Blurbs 2/6
Today's blabbermouth is about the death penalty in Japan.
On February 3, a UN Human Rights Council working group adopted a report containing 300 recommendations, including the abolition of the death penalty, at its regular review of the human rights situation in Japan. However, the recommendations only reflect the opinions of individual countries, and the Working Group has not endorsed the contents of the report.
In the recommendations, France and Germany called for the abolition or suspension of the death penalty, while China insisted on "facing up to and reflecting on the history of aggression. North Korea called for "the enactment of laws prohibiting hate speech and crimes based on racial discrimination.
Japan is a rare example in the world: 70% of the 195 countries in the world have abolished or suspended the death penalty, and only 54 countries actually carry out executions.
Of the 38 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), only the United States, South Korea, and Japan have the death penalty. The U.S. has abolished or suspended the death penalty in half of its states, and South Korea has not carried out executions since 1997.
Japan has extradition treaties with only the above-mentioned U.S. and South Korea. It is said that the existence of the death penalty may be one of the reasons why Japan is unable to conclude treaties with other countries.
The following are the results of a survey by the Cabinet Office on attitudes toward the death penalty.
(1) Existence or non-existence of the death penalty
When asked which opinion they agreed with, "The death penalty should be abolished under all circumstances" or "The death penalty is unavoidable under some circumstances," 5.7% of the respondents answered "The death penalty should be abolished under all circumstances" and 85.7% answered "The death penalty is unavoidable under some circumstances. The percentage of those who answered "In some cases, the death penalty is unavoidable" was 85.6%.
Compared to the results of the previous survey, the percentage of respondents who answered that "the death penalty is unavoidable in some cases" (81.4% → 85.6%) has increased.
a. Reasons for abolishing the death penalty
When 111 respondents who answered that "the death penalty should be abolished in any case" were asked the reason for their opinion, 55.9% of them answered that "it is better to let the person live to atone for his/her crime," 43.2% of them answered that "if there is a mistake in the trial, it cannot be undone if the person is put to death" and 43.6% of them answered that "it is better to let the person live to atone for his/her crime". 43.2% of those who selected "Killing is unforgivable even by the state," 42.3% of those who selected "Killing is against humanity and barbaric even if it is punishment," 30.6% of those who selected "I do not think that abolishing the death penalty will increase the number of heinous crimes" 29.7 The proportion of respondents who selected "Even those who have committed heinous crimes have the possibility of rehabilitation" was 18.9%, and the proportion of those who selected "Even those who have committed heinous crimes have the possibility of rehabilitation" was 18.9%. (Multiple responses)
b. Immediate or Eventual Abolition of the Death Penalty
Those who answered "the death penalty should be abolished under all circumstances" (111 persons) were asked whether they thought it would be better to abolish the death penalty immediately and completely or to gradually reduce the number of death sentences and abolish it completely at some point. When asked, 35.1% of the respondents answered "immediately and totally abolish" and 63.1% answered "gradually reduce the death penalty and eventually abolish it altogether.
c. Reasons for the Death Penalty
When those who answered that "the death penalty is unavoidable in some cases" (1,665 persons) were asked the reason for their opinion, 54.1% of them answered that "abolishing the death penalty would not calm the feelings of victims and their families," 53.2% answered that "heinous crimes should be atoned for with life," and 63.1% answered that "the death penalty is unavoidable in some cases. The proportion of respondents who selected "Violent crimes will increase if the death penalty is abolished" was high at 51.5%, followed by "People who commit heinous crimes are at risk of committing similar crimes if they are kept alive" (41.7%). (Multiple responses)
Compared to the previous survey, the percentage of respondents who chose "abolishing the death penalty would not calm the feelings of victims and their families" (50.7% → 54.1%) increased.
By city size, the percentages of respondents who chose "The abolition of the death penalty will not appease the victims and their families" and "The abolition of the death penalty will increase the number of heinous crimes" were higher in the smaller cities.
By gender, there is no significant difference.
By age, the proportion of respondents who selected "Violent crimes should be atoned for with life" was higher among those aged 70 or older.
These results suggest that the public is generally in favor of the death penalty. However, the point of contention between the two groups is the form of "atonement" that should be provided. The question is whether death should be used to atone for heinous crimes, or whether death is not atonement. I understand those who are in favor of the death penalty and say that it will not help the bereaved families, and I also understand those who are against the death penalty and say that it will be irreversible in the case of false convictions.
However, the executioner is subjected to a tremendous emotional burden. I sometimes think that it would be better to let the criminals live until death with our tax money. What do you think?
