Only in some delusional mind does the idea of “capital punishment = deterrent to murder” exist. Humans are gonna human, the laws of Man will not deter ingrained behavior.
I don’t kill because I could get the chair… I don’t kill because it is wrong to kill.
Have yet to watch a PSA where the guy says “I had my hands around his neck and I was squeezing the life out of him… then I thought about all those dudes on death row… I didn’t want to be one of them.”
I believe the theory is the justice system is a human system and therefore imperfect. When it is discovered that it was incorrect and the punishment was a fine, money can be returned. When the punishment was inprisonment the lost years can not be returned, but perhaps money might make up for it, and obviously being freed would at least stop compounding the original injustice. When the punishment was death, none can raise the unjustly dead. So when the punishment is indeed death all reasonable steps must be taken to make sure this time justice did not stray.
Which is nice ideals, but obviously has the drawback of needing to warehouse murderers for years (I think over a decade is extremely common) on the off chance that some are innocent. Which does happen from time to time (not exactly at the same rate that rapists have been exonerated when DNA testing first started to be used on backlogs of evidence).
The same may not apply in a case where the convicted started issuing death threats, but unless death threats are punishable by death it isn’t exactly the same. He might in fact be innocent of the actions he was just convinced of and is upset and lashing out in an inappropriate way. Maybe. I mean the chances are high that he did exactly what he was convicted of (he did just get convicted), and if Japan’s legal system doesn’t have automatic appeals and such chances are very low that even if the court was mistaken (or new evidence arrives later) that as a legal matter the justice system will never figure that out anyway.
Yep, I’m not 100% sure where the line between illegal threats and free speech is. There might not even be one (i.e. in general you can threaten, and that’ll be used against you in court should anyone ever attempt anything, but the threats themselves may be legal – although I have a vague feeling that there are more “speech crimes” then just slander)
Is… that not totally in character or am I missing something here?
The worst multi-level-marketing scam ever!
I blame smart phones and Monster Hunter.
Sure, in the American neighborhoods that the Cosa Nostra had saturated (like Howard Beach, NY), it was “safe,” but then again, no it wasn’t (for “outsiders”). Nor for residents, either. I can well imagine that petty criminals would know it’s a bad idea to commit crimes in Yakuza-dominated zone; that just shows how dangerous they really are.
And I highly doubt that Yakuza are first responders during a disaster. Even if they did, I would just see it as cheap PR move— the same way John Gotti gave a great (illegal) Fourth of July fireworks show and helped out with the Little Italy’s San Gennaro festival. @WoolyBugger, it is what it is: look how much they benefit from this, years later. They do this exactly so that someone can say “Well, they aren’t all bad.”
“We aren’t all bad.” “Actually, I’m pretty bad.”
Well, here’s my source on the topic. FWIW:
Of course that begs the obvious question “how did the Yakuza come to be in control of so many critical emergency supplies in the first place?”
so the yakuza are like the gqp, 'cept their idea of relief if to head off to mexico in times of disaster…
Always blame the woman. Always.
Same thing you could ask here in northern Mexico. At the height of the pandemic, the drug cartels mysteriously came up with food and supplies for the sick and elderly.
In Japan those sentenced to death are kept in solitary confinement. They are not told when their sentence is going to be carried out until the morning of that day, and it can be a long wait, there was one guy was jailed for 48 years before being released after a retrial and is still trying to prove his innocence.
After reading Aeschylus’ Orestes, I came to think the point of the legal system was to take vengeance and retribution out of the hands of the individual and put it with the State. Not to say that’s how it exactly works nowadays.
Considering capital punishment is a form of murder, there is definitely a correlation between countries that practice capital punishment and those same countries that have a legislatively increased murder rate.
The article, which was published over a week after the earthquake, says that they loaded trucks in Tokyo and Kobe and drove them north. They delivered “food, water, blankets and toiletries”, i.e things that anyone could buy.
My understanding of Greek drama was that crime called for retribution. If you were a murderer, then the Gods, furies or fates would persue you. But retribution was not a precise thing: there would be collateral damage. If you were in a community with a murderer at large, then you wanted that person gone from the community even if they were no direct risk to you. There was a sense that the guilt for the crime tainted the community at large, making them guilty unless they took action. You could kill them or exile them: as long as the crime was out, you were clean and safe. If you were Oedipus (different story) the town wanted rid of you. It’s not your fault, but out you go. Yeah, go and live in the town next door; we never liked them much anyhow.
A civic system that tries to maintain moral standards by punishing crimes is a different thing. That pre-empts the will of the gods and punishes on their behalf. I think the ancients of Aeschylus’ day were moving in that direction, but would not be happy with that reasoning put bluntly. But I dunno. Let flamewar commence!
bought with money they got by murdering people.
Either they obtained those things directly through violence and threat of violence or they paid for them with the money they got that way.
Sure, they paid for the goods with money earned from criminal activities. But there was no suggestion that they had stolen relief supplies from public bodies or NGOs or obtained them through corruption.
The Reuters article discusses the yakuza groups’ motives for offering charity.
Atsushi Mizoguchi a freelance writer and yakuza antagonize who has written about organized crime for 40 years, also gives the yakuza the benefit of the doubt.
“Rather than a PR effort, I think it’s actually good intentions,” said Mizoguchi, who has angered the yakuza so much that he has been stabbed twice in attacks by gang members.
But yakuza shun the spotlight regarding their relief work.
Adelstein explains that there is an informal understanding between yakuza and police who tolerate the gangs carrying out such charitable work, but not seeking publicity for it.
“What they seek most is self-satisfaction,” said Miyazaki, the son of the former yakuza boss. “It’s not for pay, but for pride.”
Part I:
The Orestia trilogy (more or less) begins with King Agamemnon returning from the Trojan War. Queen Clytemnestra has taken up with a lover from a rival clan. She’s also pissed that her husband sacrificed their daughter, Iphigenia, to win favorable departure winds to sail to the war ten years prior. Queen kills King.
Part II:
Daughter, Elektra, points out to brother, Orestes, that a son is socially and morally obligated to take revenge for his father’s murder. They give libations to the gods and to the Earth and he kills mom. Since nothing is ever straightforward, there’s nothing worse in Nature’s eyes than killing your own mother, the Harpies (aka, The Eumenides) rise from the ground and pursue Orestes. They want BLOOD!
Part III:
Orestes arrives at the Temple of Apollo with the Harpies hot on his heels. He heard that he can ritually wash off the pollution of his deeds there. Unfortunately, the pig blood doesn’t prove a close enough cleansing agent for mom blood to assuage the Harpies. Apollo, having failed, turns to his sister, Athena.
She appeals to The Eumenides and convinces them to put the matter to democratic vote, with Athena playing Vice President in The Senate in case of a tie. Question posed: Was Orestes justified in killing Mom to revenge Dad, or is Mom-killing a crime against Nature greater than Dad-killing? The Demos vote ties, and Athena favors Orestes.
The Harpies are enraged. They want their blood. Athena strikes a deal: A law shall be passed that prevents any Greek from killing another Greek—and the Harpies shall be the weight and force behind that law. The Eumenides are then given new vestments—literally “invested” with a new power—signifying their new role in civil society. It is then that reciprocal violence is ended, vengeance is assumed under The State, and Athens is founded.
Note that this story takes place after The Iliad and The Odyssey—after all the stories of righteous vengeance. Aeschylus wanted the Athenians to think of themselves, to imagine themselves outside of or playing a role transcending vengeful violence and establishing civil society.
A shitty Cliff Notes version, but the idea is that, for civil society to exist at all, vengeance cannot be, must not be allowed to exist in the hands of the individual least violence spiral out of control. Rule by Law is what allows civilization to exist. And it is only the State that shall dole out vengeance.
