CAN "MISJUDGMENT" BE THE DECISIVE REASON FOR ABOLISHING DEATH PENALTY? (SUMMARY)

The main body in Japanese

Most Japanese abolitionists seem to consider 'the possibility of misjudgment' or 'the risk of wrongful execution' as the definite ground for abolishing the capital punishment (hereafter abbreviated as C.P.).

Their argument runs as follows:

1. Human beings are fallible, i.e. they tend to make mistakes.
2. Wrongful execution is a mistake which is irrevocable and irremissible (and therefore is 'the most unjust thing imaginable').
3. As long as C.P. exists, the risk of wrongful execution also remains.
   ------------------------------
4. Therefore, C.P. ought to be abolished.

The followings are the main objections that have been made by anti-abolitionists.

1. There is no risk of wrongful execution in the present legal and judicial system in Japan.
2. While some judicial decisions may be subject to doubts, others leave no room for misjudgment. Thus, the talk of the risk of wrongful execution doesn't apply to the latter cases.
3. Not only C.P., but also some other forms of punishment (e.g. a twenty-year imprisonment) may be irrevocable and irremissible, so if admitted, the argument from the risk of wrongful execution entails the abolition of the whole system of punishment.
4. Even if we concede that there is 'A DIFFERENCE' between the irrevocability and irremissibility in CP and those in other forms of punishment, in that the former may take away the innocent's lives whereas the latter may not, car accidents or wrong diagnoses can certainly kill the innocent. Thus, if the government should decide to abolish C.P. on the ground that it may kill the innocent, it would also have to abolish motorcar traffic and medical treatment on the same ground.

(Some abolitionists argue against these objections, but I'll omit their arguments)

I grant that the objections (1) and (2) are not valid and I'm also ready to admit that the objection (3) can be challenged. But the objection (4) appears to me unable to be rebutted (and unfortunately I haven't seen any comments on this objection from those abolitionists who argue against C.P. on the grounds of the risk of wrongful execution).