Death sentence for Nagasaki Mayor Murderer--true justice or politics.

POINT OF VIEW/ Kaoru Takamura:

THE ASAHI SHIMBUN

2008/6/18

In late May, the Nagasaki District Court handed the death sentence to Tetsuya Shiroo, a former senior member of a yakuza group, for fatally shooting Nagasaki Mayor Iccho Itoh while he was campaigning for re-election in April last year.

The ruling stated that "the crime has shaken democracy to its foundations" and determined that capital punishment is inevitable despite a judicial tradition of not ordering the ultimate penalty when a single life has been taken. I have strong misgivings about the ruling.

Was the incident really tantamount to an act of terrorism against the democratic order? It had been reported that the accused used a Nagasaki construction company to tap funds for his activities and the company was facing financial difficulties because it could not land contracts for the city's public works projects.

Although the company applied for a public loan for medium and small businesses, the city turned down its application. The accused claimed it was unjust and took the case to a district public prosecutors office. But the prosecutors office dismissed the allegation. Apparently, the developments triggered the shooting incident.

The district court ruled that the accused acted on a misdirected grudge he developed against the mayor based on the notion that he was slighted by the city. But I feel there is a gulf between the events that led to the crime and the logic that it constitutes "a threat to democracy."

The accused depended on public works projects doled out by the city to make a living. First, what this fact illustrates is the cozy and murky relationship between local governments and private companies over public works projects that has remained intact for so many years.

In recent years, as local governments are increasingly facing financial woes, budgets for public works projects are being cut. Against this backdrop, it is clear that such collusion lacks transparency and no longer works like as it once did.

Now that the system of profit-sharing among industry associations and organized crime groups has fallen apart, it has become impossible to hold on to members who have lost their means of making a livelihood and have nowhere to go.

In regional communities, it appears the mind-set that is unique to yakuza still thrives. Having lost their cut of the take that they took for granted, gangsters who could no longer make ends meet must feel driven to take out their grudge on someone.

The accused must have jumped to the hasty conclusion that the mayor was to blame for his misfortune.

Actually, all the trial revealed was the collapse of such traditional systems concerning public works projects ordered by local governments, and little more.

If so, as long as it was a criminal trial, properly speaking, what the court needed to focus on was the background that led the accused to kill the mayor. In other words, how was the accused involved in public works projects? Did he have connections that helped him land contracts? How did his business come to a standstill and what made him decide to kill the mayor? In short, what the court should have done was to examine the motive.

But while the district court simply concluded the crime was a shortsighted act caused by unjust resentment harbored by the accused, it went on to rule that his act constituted a threat against democracy. This is clearly jumping to conclusions.

The ruling appears to have attached importance to the fact that the incident occurred during an election campaign. I find it questionable that the court focused more on campaign obstruction than the motive that led to the crime.

Before debating the propriety of the death sentence, I feel a sense of crisis that such an arbitrary decision is so readily accepted. The fact that the decision was made by professional judges, not citizen judges who will take part in forming rulings from next year, is also a serious problem.

Up to now, Japanese trials have been known for their strict application of the law. Courts have traditionally stood by the principle that precedents are nothing more or less than precedents. At the same time, they maintained fairness by keeping a distance from wavering public opinion that has kept changing with the times.

It is this fairness that served as the very foundation of our democratic society. I do not believe democracy is about arbitrarily changing standards of judgment to accommodate the intentions of the Justice Ministry and public opinion, which are seeking tougher punishments for crimes.

Generally speaking, courts are reluctant to advocate democracy in administrative lawsuits, pollution cases and lawsuits filed by victims of drug-induced illness. Why champion democracy in a criminal lawsuit? I find something creepy about the ruling.