Japan’s death penalty debate has three pillars: keep, abolish, and revise (middle path).

 Japan’s death penalty debate has three pillars: keep, abolish, and revise (middle path).

Keep: For extremely grave crimes, some argue the harshest penalty is needed as the ultimate “reckoning.” Sentencing follows the 1983 Supreme Court “Nagayama criteria” (overall assessment of the crime’s nature, number of victims, social impact, etc.). Public opinion largely accepts it “in some cases” (83.1% in 2024). In June 2025, the sentence of Takahiro Shiraishi (the Zama case) was carried out after nearly three years. Since 2008, the victim participation system has allowed bereaved families to voice their views in court.
Abolish: The biggest concern is wrongful conviction. Iwao Hakamada was acquitted in a retrial in 2024, and in 2025 a large compensation was awarded. An irreversible punishment raises human-rights issues; the UN urges a moratorium. Japan’s use of hanging and same-day notification draws international criticism. Bar associations and religious bodies call for abolition or a halt.
Revise (middle): Instead of immediate abolition or status quo, proposals include a moratorium, greater transparency, narrower eligibility, and stronger safeguards against error—retrial reform and mandatory audio/video recording of interrogations.
Cultural background: Emphasis on apology and restitution, lay participation via the Saiban-in system, very low homicide rates with strict gun control, and memories of the Aum attacks shape opinion.
Global trend: Europe has standardised abolition; Africa has accelerated it; Asia shows growing reforms. Overall, few countries execute, with executions concentrated in a handful. Japan remains a G7 outlier that retains the death penalty. The core question is: Should the state take life, and how do we balance safety with human dignity?