Judgment cases seen from the murder of former Prime Minister Abe and the murder of a member of the Diet in the past.
2022-07-13
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Assassination of Inejiro Asanuma
Inejiro Asanuma, chairman of the Japan Socialist Party Central Executive Committee, is a 17-year-old right-wing boy, Otoya Yamaguchi, during a speech at the Hibiya Public Hall in Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo on October 12, 1960. The case of being stabbed by an arrow.The criminal Yamaguchi committed suicide in a single room at the Tokyo Juvenile Classification Home on the night of November 2, three weeks after the incident.
Hyōsuke Niwa stabbed case
October 21, 1990 A former member of the House of Representatives (12th term) belonging to the Liberal Democratic Party and Hyōsuke Niwa, a member of the Aichi Prefectural Assembly (2nd term), was temporarily discharged from hospital due to schizophrenia at the Ground Self-Defense Force station in Nagoya city. He was stabbed in the neck and died the following month.The criminal is readmitted to a mental hospital .
Shinjiro Yamamura stabbed case
In 1992, on April 12, the day before his visit to North Korea as the leader of the LDP delegation, he was stabbed and killed by a 24-year-old second daughter who suffered from a mental illness at his home. Her second daughter wasdetermined to be incapacitated due to her loss of soul and was not prosecuted, but she committed suicide four years later.
Koki Ishii stabbed murder case
On October 25, 2002, Democratic Party member Kouki Ishii died after being stabbed in his left chest with a Yanagi knife at his home parking lot in Setagaya Ward. On June 18, 2004, the Tokyo District Court sentenced him to life imprisonment, stating that he could not trust the defendant's alleged "financial trouble" motive.On November 15, 2005, the Supreme Court confirmed a sentence of life imprisonment .
Nagasaki Mayor Shooting Case
At 7:51 pm on April 17, 2007, Mayor Ito, who was on a tour, arrived in front of his election office in Daikokumachi, Nagasaki City, near JR Kyushu Nagasaki Station. He was shot at around 7:51:45 pm shortly after staff told reporters that the mayor had returned.
On May 26, 2008, the Nagasaki District Court sentencedto death, pointing out that it "shook the foundations of democracy, such as confusing elections."
On September 29, 2009, the appeal trial at the Fukuoka High Court abandoned the first-instance judgment, andwas sentenced to life imprisonment again . In a peculiar case in which the incumbent mayor was shot dead during the election, the suitability of the death penalty for one victim became the biggest issue. Regarding the reason for avoiding the death penalty, Judge Shoichi Matsuo pointed out that "It is necessary to fully consider that there is only one victim."
He then decided that "it is a challenge to democracy, but the motive is a grudge against the victims, not the purpose of obstructing the election itself," and concluded that "the choice of the death penalty must be hesitant."
Indefinite imprisonment in past examples
Regarding the cases where politicians were killed in the past, except for the case where the criminal committed suicide, both the case of Kouki Ishii's murder and the case of Tetsuya Shiroo's shooting have been confirmed as indefinite imprisonment for the murder of one victim.
Planning is the worst
The murder of former Prime Minister Abe includes social impact, election obstruction, firearms tampering, sword law violation, planning, clear murder, execution of murder, and unclear motives. When considering planning, it is a weapon that manufactures firearms by itself and is prohibited by law that has the ability to kill, which is considered to be the most malicious in terms of planning.
It is not at the level of purchasing kitchen knives in advance at a home improvement store or making a detailed action plan to kill the victim.
1 Representative and degree of influence
There is no doubt that he is one of the most influential people in Japan in terms of social impact, but since he is a general member of the Diet, it is unknown to what extent it will be added.
The motive is attributed to personal grudges, but there is no causal relationship between the suspect's mother and religious groups.#Blue#There is no causal relationship with former Prime Minister Abe. , I can't find the part that takes into account the situation.
Life imprisonment or death penalty
If you look at past examples, you will be sentenced to life imprisonment, but it will be interesting to see if you will be sentenced to death.Former prosecutor Yoji Ochiai points out that there is a possibility of the death penalty, using the death sentence of the first instance of the Nagasaki District Court as an example.
Although it is an epoch-making judgment as a death sentence for the murder of one person, what kind of judgment will the judiciary make regarding planning, its maliciousness, selfish motives, etc.? The anger of the people does not seem to subside.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
State funerals are an exclusive matter of the Cabinet - clearly stated in the Cabinet Office Establishment Act, similar discussions have been made in the past and a conclusion has been reached.
Public opinion grills the perpetrator's motive
Don't politicians have freedom of religion?
State funerals are an exclusive matter of the Cabinet
Certified by Cabinet Office Establishment Act
It is the opposition members who are not based on the law
Public opinion in Japan is still agitated over the issue of state funerals. In the first place, I am appalled by the way the Japanese media is using the claims of the person who murdered former Prime Minister Abe as they are, changing it to a picture of the Liberal Democratic Party and the Unification Church. They are even using the murderer's crazy and erroneous motives to provoke the people.
Shouldn't politicians be religious? Freedom of thought and belief is a legitimate human right granted to all citizens. If there is a problem that violates the Political Funds Control Act, then that would be fine, but in that case, religious groups and companies are completely irrelevant. Former Prime Minister Abe merely offered his greetings. I tried looking for a law that says greetings are a crime, but I couldn't find anything. I would like the definition of the word "involvement" to be clear. But that's it.
The Kishida Cabinet decided to hold a state funeral, but I wonder if there is a problem. Opposition parties and the media are shouting that there is a problem with the decision-making process. Many say that at least the Diet should be involved in decision-making. For a long time after the war, there was no legal regulation regarding state funerals, and according to Yoichi Takahashi, similar points were raised and discussed at the time of former Prime Minister Yoshida's state funeral. In other words, it was not clear at the time who should make decisions, how they should be decided, and what process should be used, which was already discussed in the past.
In 1999, the Cabinet Office Establishment Act was enacted, and in the legislation that clearly stipulated matters decided by the Cabinet Office, Article 4, 3-32 states, `` Affairs related to national ceremonies and ceremonies and events conducted by the Cabinet.'' Regarding ”. In other words, the National Assembly, or the legislative branch, has enacted a law that states that state funerals, which are national ceremonies, are the exclusive domain of the Cabinet.
There is no problem with the process by which the Cabinet made decisions based on the Cabinet Office Establishment Act. If the Diet should be involved now, it means that all members of the Diet have already been involved, the legislative branch has enacted legislation, and the Kishida Cabinet has decided to hold a state funeral accordingly. Don't members of Congress have an obligation to obey the law?
This makes me question whether Japan really is a country ruled by law. Incendiary voices that sound like they are from a special country are corrupting a democratic society.
Speech at the banquet of Emperor Showa, who addressed the post - war food crisis and conveyed his gratitude for the food aid, on his visit to the United States.
Emperor Showa who gave his life
Request food aid in exchange for imperial treasures
Food aid realized
Emperor invited to the White House
Emperor Showa who gave his life
When Emperor Showa visited MacArthur's office, he asked MacArthur to help the Japanese people in exchange for his own life. MacArthur later wrote, ``I was convinced that the man in front of me was the best gentleman in Japan.''
In the winter of 1945, Japan experienced a serious food crisis after the war, and Emperor Showa told Kenzo Matsumura, the Minister of Education, ``It is said that there are quite a few items belonging to the Imperial Household that have international value.'' Therefore, I ordered the director of the Imperial Museum to investigate and create a catalog.I would like to give this to America as compensation and use it as food to stave off starvation for the people for just one day. "Take the sea urchins with you," he ordered.
Matsumura was perplexed, but at the strong will of Emperor Showa, he delivered the inventory to MacArthur, who was surprised and said, ``I would not even honor it by taking away the treasures of the imperial family and offering them food in return.'' '' and said that after returning the inventory, they would take steps to provide food aid from the United States.
In 1975, Emperor Showa was invited to the White House by former President Ford as a state guest. American public opinion had little interest in the Japanese Emperor's visit to the United States, and it was never reported, but everyone could have imagined that the Showa Emperor would naturally hold a grudge against the United States. At his White House dinner, His Majesty the Emperor gave the following address:
``I have long desired to visit your country for many years, and if my wish were to come true, I would like to convey the following to your people. I would like to personally express my gratitude to your people for the warm kindness and assistance you extended to us in rebuilding our country immediately after that unfortunate war, which we deeply regret. I expressed my gratitude.
Furthermore, ``The number of people in both countries who are unaware of the recent war is about to exceed the majority.However, even if times change in the future, I believe that the generosity and goodwill of your people will be handed down among the Japanese people for a long time.'' '', the venue erupted with loud applause.
After that, the story quickly spread throughout the United States, and for six days in a row, the front pages of newspapers reported on the visit of the Japanese Emperor to the United States. This event took place 30 years after the end of the war.
Japanese cameras sweeping the The reason why Japanese cameras are taking over the world market is because of their sensors and lenses.These are the two properties of digital cameras.Light must not be refracted or diffusely reflected inside the lens, and the surfaces must be uniform.This affects the amount of light taken into the camera.
A lens with a high F value is dark and cheap, and if the F value falls, it takes in light and becomes expensive.The sensor is the one that receives the light taken in to convert it into digital data.The smartphone lens is close to the sensor and doesn't seem to have much effect, but it still changes.A single-lens reflex camera used for TV reporting and News paper,Magazine and so on or a lens with a high F value is useless.
That's why the No Japan movement in Korea is filmed with a Japanese camera.
Whether the debate on the ability to attack enemy bases is a matter of propriety, possession is an issue, or start is an issue - possession is an issue.
What is the point of the ability to attack enemy bases
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
1999 Yoshinari Norota
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
1969 Cabinet decision
The debate over the ability to attack enemy bases has led to confusion in public opinion regarding whether it is permissible to attack enemy bases, whether it is permissible to possess such weapons, and what stage refers to the initiation of an enemy attack. appear. Looking at the government's views so far, it has consistently been stated that the ability to attack enemy bases falls within the scope of defense, and the government has also made clear its views on launching such attacks. The question is whether or not to actually own it.
Issues regarding the ability to attack enemy bases
[Possibility] Is it okay to attack enemy bases (enemy territory)?
[Initiation] What is the initiation of an attack by an enemy country (activation conditions)?
[Holding] When and what to hold
Regarding the ability to attack enemy bases, Prime Minister Ichiro Hatoyama already answered in 1956 that in the event of a missile attack, ``It is inconceivable that the purpose of the Constitution is to sit back and wait for self-destruction.'' Since then, the Japanese government has continued to interpret it as constitutionally permissible.
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
The purpose of the Constitution is that if an imminent illegal violation is committed against our country, and if a guided missile or other attack is carried out on our land as a means of such violation, we should sit back and wait for our own destruction. I don't think I can think of it that way. In such cases, take the minimum necessary measures to prevent such attacks, for example, as long as it is recognized that there is no other way to defend against attacks by guided missiles, etc. I believe that hitting bases with guided missiles is legally within the scope of self-defense and should be possible.
In 1999, Defense Agency Director General Norota responded that the Self-Defense Forces would use the necessary force if there was a threat of an armed attack.
1999 Yoshinari Norota
In situations that do not result in an armed attack against our country, police agencies are primarily responsible for dealing with the situation, but in cases where the general police force cannot respond, the Self-Defense Forces respond by dispatching public order, and are not responsible for suppressing the situation. It's possible. Then, if a certain situation corresponds to an armed attack against our country or the possibility of such attack, a defense operation is ordered, and the Self-Defense Forces will use the necessary force to defend our country. That's why .
In 2003, regarding the launch of an attack on Japan, Director-General of the Defense Agency Ishiba announced that he would turn Tokyo into a sea of fire, and stated that if Japan began injecting fuel, this would be considered the start.
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
Now, I have a question from the committee members: There has been a statement that Tokyo will be reduced to a sea of fire, that it will be reduced to ashes, and for that purpose, in order to accomplish that, in order to make it come true. If they started injecting fuel or did something like that, then their intentions would be clear. This is a case where someone says, "I'm going to shoot this thing and reduce Tokyo to ashes," and then they just start pumping fuel, or they start making preparations, and they start taking action. Well, if you do that, wouldn't that be called a start?. That's true, because the intention is clear and that's what it is. Therefore, what I am saying is no different from what the Minister of Foreign Affairs is saying.
On February 16, 2022, Defense Minister Nobuo Kishi spoke at a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Budget Committee regarding the "capability to attack enemy bases" that the government is considering possessing. , stated that they would not rule out the option of bombing military bases, and acknowledged that it falls within the scope of self-defense.
As stated above, the government has already stated that the ability to attack enemy bases is within the scope of the right of self-defense. Regarding the next issue, ``retention'', there was a Cabinet decision in 1969.
1969 Cabinet decision
Possessing so-called offensive weapons, whose performance is exclusively used for catastrophic destruction of the enemy country's homeland, immediately goes beyond the minimum necessary range for self-defense. Therefore, it is not allowed under any circumstances. For example, the possession of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), long-range strategic bombers, and attack aircraft carriers is not allowed.
This is the current argument for ``possession'' of the ability to attack enemy bases. In other words, the debate is whether it is a minimal weapon for self-defense or whether it exceeds it.
Since the current government opinion has interpreted it as falling within the scope of the right of self-defense, it does not fall under "offensive weapons used only for catastrophic destruction" and can be interpreted as something that can be possessed. . Until now, the government's position has consistently been that possessing the ability to attack enemy bases is within the scope of the right of self-defense, but it has not actually possessed it and has kept it ambiguous. All that's happening now is an effort to actually own it. Possession of the ability to attack enemy bases has already been deemed constitutional, and the launch of an attack by the enemy has been defined, so it would be unreasonable to now say that we are opposed to actually having the ability to attack enemy bases. The premise of the argument seems to be different.
The cabinet decision defines weapons as those used only for the catastrophic destruction of the enemy's homeland, so it is clear that this does not apply to weapons used within the scope of the right of self-defense.
Possibility of the world's largest oil field off the coast of Izura, Ibaraki Prefecture - Hope for investigation and mining including security.
It is estimated that there is a huge oil field off the coast of Izura in Ibaraki Prefecture. A slag called carbonate concrete was formed by the bond between calcium and carbon, and the origin of carbon was unclear by research teams at Ibaraki University and Hokkaido University who found that it was natural gas. From the area of ??the reef, the total amount of natural gas ejected from the seabed is estimated, and the fact that natural gas is emitted means that there is a high possibility that oil resources are buried under it. If oil resources are discovered, they will be one of the largest in the world.
There seems to be an opinion that it is cheaper to buy oil from abroad as before because it takes a lot of time and cost from investigation to mining, but as a problem including security before the economic point of view. I want you to proceed with the investigation. In the first place, QUAD is the area where oil tankers pass from the Middle East, and China is trying to control it, and its original purpose is to prevent those movements.
What if oil comes out in Japan? Will the Spratly Islands issue and the Taiwan Strait issue become less important to Japan? No, it wouldn't be. China is cleverly developing oil resource diplomacy, which is a card of further threat to Asian countries. Achieving a free and open Indo-Pacific by QUAD could sell Japanese oil to Asian countries and reduce China's influence on the Spratly Islands relatively. I would like the country to discuss the overall benefits of having resources, not just the perspective of which is cheaper.
