Justice served in Osaka

児童殺傷事件犯人に死刑判決

During the 20-month trial, Mamoru Takuma, 39, showed himself to be a coldblooded man with a twisted mentality. He showed no signs of remorse for the murders. He hurled insults at relatives of the victims. He showed contempt for the court. And he effectively boycotted the session Aug. 28; he was not there when the judge read out the sentence.

"Let me say my last words. I'm going to die anyway." The presiding judge refused to listen and ordered the defendant to be removed from the courtroom. That was the right decision. Yet it was extremely unusual and very unfortunate that the ruling was handed down without the presence of the defendant.

Takuma has only himself to blame. During the trial he was offered a chance to state his view again and again, yet each time he refused to speak presumably because he did not want to reveal his "weaknesses." Indeed, it is likely that he was afraid to listen to his death sentence.

The saving grace is that he admitted all charges, though it remains unclear why he acted as he did. The trial focused on the question of whether he was sane enough to tell right from wrong. The court has reasonably concluded that he was, citing what it calls "highly credible" psychiatric evaluations. "The case reveals a self-centered and exceedingly distorted personality," the ruling states. "He showed no effects of any mental illness and therefore possessed sufficient mental capacity to be held criminally responsible for his actions."

The Takuma case has turned a spotlight on two major defects in our society: lack of security at schools and inadequacy of crime-prevention measures for mentally disabled people.

As for the first problem, an increasing number of schools have taken a variety of safety measures, such as setting up alarms against intruders and monitoring cameras, as well as requiring students to bear name patches on their uniforms. Many schools have tried to limit contacts with outsiders. Meanwhile, the education ministry has prepared manuals on crime prevention and crisis management.

In practice, however, it may be difficult to keep out all trespassers at all times. Perhaps the best deterrent would be to promote residents' participation in school management or create a self-policing environment with the cooperation of communities. In that kind of situation it should be easier to work out more specific safety measures.

Regarding the second problem, the Diet has passed legislation mandating the medical observation of mentally ill people who have committed serious offenses. The law applies to those who, although exempted from prosecution or declared innocent, have been found by judges and psychiatrists to be liable to repeat offenses. If so determined, such people may be ordered to visit or enter hospitals.

That is a step in the right direction. The question that remains is what to do about criminals, such as Takuma, who are mentally fit but have serious personality disorders. As yet there seems to be no adequate measures in place to deal with such "borderline" offenders. Takuma has admitted entering a hospital by feigning mental illness. This suggests that the existing legal system is not perfect. Dealing with cases like Takuma's requires closer cooperation between psychiatric medicine and criminal justice.

In a nutshell, the accused comes across as a selfish man trying to shift all his troubles to other people and to society in general. Yet, on the first day of the trial, he offered an apology, saying he wanted to "make amends" by accepting capital punishment. After that, however, he became defiant and remorseless.

Finally, the trial has left a soothing precedent for the victims' relatives: for the first time they were allowed to watch the proceedings via monitors in a separate room. It was a thoughtful measure to spare family members the pain of sharing the same space with the defendant. They certainly deserved such consideration given the beastly crime he had committed.

The Japan Times Weekly
Sept. 6, 2003
(C) All rights reserved

      裁判長は判決理由で、事件は「犯罪史上例を見ない重大事件である」として、判決は「死刑以外はあり得ない」と述べた。

      20ヵ月にわたる裁判で、被告は自分の殺傷行為に対し一切悔悟の情を示さず、遺族に対し暴言を吐いた。裁判長は、公判の冒頭で「どうせ死刑なんやから最後に言わせてくれ」と発言した被告を退廷させ、被告不在のまま判決を言い渡した。これは正しい判断だが、異例の事態で残念である。

      裁判の争点は被告の責任能力だったが、判決は精神鑑定を検討し、完全責任能力を認めた。

      事件は学校の安全管理と精神障害者による犯罪の予防策が不十分なことを示した。事件後、多くの学校で侵入者に対する警報装置、ビデオ監視装置などが導入されたが、それだけでは不十分だ。学校の管理に近隣住民の参加を求めたり、自警団を作るのもよいだろう。

      精神障害者による犯罪については、国会は凶悪事件を起こした障害者に対し保護観察を義務付ける法案を成立させた。問題は宅間被告のような、精神障害者でないが重大な人格障害を持つ者をどうするかである。被告は自分の問題を他者や社会のせいにする自己中心的な性格の持ち主である。

      今回の判決公判で遺族は別室のビデオモニターでの公判視聴を許された。被告と同席する苦痛を軽減するための初めての措置で、犯罪の凶悪性を考えれば当然だろう。