Consisting of a private sector panel Academics, lawmakers and other experts have called for a fundamental overhaul of the problematic death penalty system.

In its recommendations to the government, the group pointed out that the death penalty “contains fundamental problems” and said that “it should not be allowed to continue like this.”

He unanimously recommended the establishment of an “official council” within the Diet and Cabinet to conduct the proposed review. The panel also called for a moratorium on executions until the council reaches a conclusion.

The discussion group was convened by the Japan Bar Association Federation, which consists of 16 members. They include academics, members of the Diet, a former prosecutor general, a former general commissioner of the National Police Service, and a representative of a victims’ group. A member of the Asahi Shimbun’s editorial board also joined the group.

The recommendations included a list of specific issues, such as systems to eliminate the possibility of erroneous decisions, ways to support victims’ families, and methods to accurately gather public opinion and disclose death penalty information.

Cesare Beccaria, an 18th-century Italian criminologist and economist, argued against the death penalty, saying, “The death penalty is harmful to society because of the example of barbarism it presents.”

On the other hand, contemporary German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was entirely in favor of the death penalty, saying: “Every murderer—everyone who commits murder, orders it, or is an accomplice—must suffer. death.”

Since then, debate over the merits of the death penalty has continued. More than 70 percent of countries have abolished the death penalty, either legally or practically. South Korea suspended executions a quarter century ago. In September, Taiwan’s judiciary introduced very strict conditions for the execution of the death penalty.

Decisions regarding judicial systems need to be taken in a way that ensures that they are compatible with people’s values ​​and universal human rights concepts. With regard to the death penalty in particular, a coherent discussion on the subject is difficult unless the fundamental question is whether the purpose of punishment is classical punishment such as “an eye for an eye” or to prevent crime and maintain social order.

But the national debate in Japan to “comparison and harmonize” key issues regarding the death penalty has received little attention.

At the beginning of this century, a bipartisan group of legislators dubbed the “Association of Members of the Diet for the Abolition of the Death Penalty” moved to introduce a bill in the Diet to create a death penalty system working group. However, it did not happen.

When Iwao Hakamada, who was sentenced to death for the murders of four family members 56 years ago, was recently acquitted in a high-profile false conviction case, the irreversible danger of the practice of wrongful conviction was keenly felt by many.

There are fundamental doubts about whether the state should be allowed to take the life of an individual as punishment for a crime. Asahi Shimbun editorials call for opening discussions on abolishing the death penalty.

We look forward to the establishment of a formal council to resolve this long-standing and complex issue. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi said, “We are not considering it at the moment,” but what is needed now is a process of reaching consensus through open debate on this fundamental and profound question of criminal justice.

–Asahi Shimbun, November 16