The issue of whether "same-day notice" of executions violates the Constitution was dismissed in a recent court decision (now in the first instance).

Regardless of the merits of this trial or the death penalty, I believe that one of the reasons why the death penalty is an "extreme punishment" is because of this "non-disclosure of the date of notification.

Of course, even with "disclosure," extreme punishment is extreme punishment.

For example, if someone said to me, 'You (Ebata) are confirmed to die on April 17, 2034, 10 years from today, and this is inevitable,' I don't know whether I would think this was a good thing or an unnecessary thing to say.

But the discretion to extend that "10 years later" with effort or shorten it with despair -- is something the death penalty does not have.

I think that the death penalty is an extreme punishment in that it deprives a person of the right to choose their way of death.

Aside from that.

-----

The death penalty is a punishment that we "support" (in principle) after considering our personal views on the whole, including historical background and crime deterrence.

I believe that it is only a matter of time before same-sex marriages are officially recognized (although I think it is wild to put them in the same category).

We can confirm that the judiciary's rulings are changing gradually from year to year.

However, I believe that, as a general rule, public sentiment is "in favor of the death penalty.

As far as I know, there are few court cases on the issue of "the death penalty is unconstitutional."

The issue is also generally "cruelty or not.

This ruling is the only court case I know of (that I am aware of) fighting the "system" itself. (Please let me know if there are any precedents I am missing.)

-----

However, we have a "duty" to check whether this system works well.

Namely,

"witnessing an execution."

We should apply the same framework as the "jury system" (*) to the "system of witnessing executions.

(*)Notification is made based on a list drawn up by lottery from among the voters, and a person cannot refuse to be a judge without cause.

Of course, we should not install this system easily; if it does, we will have to discuss it in depth.

If we are to make an administrative argument of principle, it is extraordinary that there is no "system of witnessing executions."

The above is because this falls under the "disclosure of administrative processing."

If mandatory participation is "too much to ask," then the program should be operated as an application system for those who wish to participate.

(It would be a significant incident if a person who participates in the program caused an accident (including suicide) due to fear of being forced to participate.)

As for the application system, it is evident that it requires a rigorous examination (tests such as whether the historical background and judicial or administrative handling protocols regarding the death penalty are understood).

In addition, as a matter of human rights, permission for disclosure/non-disclosure by the person executed would naturally be required.

To consider this further, does the bereaved family of a crime victim have the right to be present without the permission of the person executed? And so on, need to be considered.

(Now that you mention it, I had overlooked this point of view. For example, what happens to the family register and certificate of residence after a definite death sentence, and other relatively trivial matters (and what happens if a request for a retrial overturns the sentence? and so on))

-----

By the way, I will apply to this program as soon as it starts.

I am aware that I am maintaining this society by my own "bloody hands" -- and I affirm that.

Therefore, I believe that I am obligated to watch my "bloody hand" with my own eyes, not as an abstraction but as a concrete object.