Lessons of a cult guru's trial

麻原被告に死刑求刑

The request for capital punishment comes as no surprise. Asahara, the 48-year-old founder of Aum Shinrikyo, stands accused of murder and other felonies in 13 cases, including the sarin nerve gas attacks in Matsumoto City, Nagano Prefecture, in 1994 and in the Tokyo subway system in 1995. In all, 27 people were killed and more than 4,000 injured.

This is one of the most extraordinary criminal trials ever, not only because the crimes were "systematic, premeditated and inhuman" but because of the anomalous proceedings. Since the trial began seven years ago, 254 court sessions have been held, but the whole truth about the doomsday cult has yet to be unraveled.

Still, the argument that Asahara masterminded the killings is hard to refute. Nine of his disciples have received death sentences in the sarin gassing and other cases, including the murders of an anti-cult lawyer and his family. All nine have testified that they received orders sk,2 to kill. Six others have received life sentences.

sk Aum Shinrikyo, found in 1980, was ordered disbanded as a religious organization in 1996, the year after the subway gas attack. Now named Aleph, the cult remains under the surveillance of public security authorities. Recently, however, it reportedly has stepped up its religious activities.

In retrospect, the Asahara trial offers a number of lessons for the prosecution and the defense team — lessons that can apply to future criminal cases as well. The first lesson is that the prosecution has pressed so many charges against a single defendant that the big picture — the whole truth about the Aum cult and its guru — has become somewhat blurred.

This is not to deny the gravity of some of the charges, which include attempted murders, illegal arrest and imprisonment resulting in death, the destruction of corpses and the plotting of murders. The point is that prosecutors should have devoted greater attention to core cases, particularly the production and use of nerve gas, instead of trying to cover all the cases. A concentrated approach would have helped to find out more of the truth behind the series of cult crimes.

The second lesson is that the defense team has contributed to the inefficiency in the trial because of their rigid handling of the sarin cases. The lawyers for Asahara had tried to seek evidence of injury concerning all of the roughly 4,000 injury victims, whereas the prosecutors had sought evidence from 18 selected witnesses. The third lesson flows from the first two: The trial has gone on for seven years. According to 2001 statistics, the average trial period for criminal cases handled at the district court level was 8.4 months. Cases exceeding more than two years accounted for 7.7 percent of the total, due largely to complex and difficult problems involved. Although the Asahara case is difficult and complex, seven years seems too long.

Perhaps the most important lesson of this trial is that a lot of time — and a lot of taxpayer money — would have been saved if the prosecution and the defense team had sorted out their arguments in a more efficient and concentrated manner. This is not to suggest, however, that the investigation of the truth should be sacrificed for the sake of efficiency.

Asahara must take part of the blame for the drawn-out trial. He has remained incommunicado most of the time — other than pleading not guilty in all cases except one (attempted murder). When he spoke, as if to himself, it was often unintelligible. The defense team had a difficult time trying to develop a smooth relationship with the enigmatic defendant.

"The accused has shown no remorse. His attitude in the court cannot help but chafe the feelings of the victims and bereaved families," the prosecutors said in their concluding statement. "It is only natural that they should demand capital punishment for him."

Yet it is hard to imagine that the mumbling Asahara is listening.

The Japan Times Weekly
May 3, 2003
(C) All rights reserved

      一連のオウム関連事件では27人が死亡、4,000人以上が重軽傷を負っている。死刑求刑は驚くにあたらない。

      麻原被告の裁判は特異な刑事裁判だ。問題の犯罪が「組織的、計画的、非人道的に」行われたばかりでなく、裁判が7年もかかったにもかかわらず、教団の全容が解明されていない。

      被告が一連の事件の首謀者であったという検察の結論はほとんど反論の余地がない。弁護士一家の殺害を含む事件で死刑判決を受けた9人の信者は、すべて被告から殺人の指示を受けたと証言している。

      オウム真理教は、1996年に宗教法人として解散命令を受けた。現在はアーレフと改称、公安調査庁の監視下にある。

      麻原被告の裁判から学ぶべきことは、まず検察が1人の被告をあまりにも多くの罪名で起訴したため、教団と教祖の全体像が見えなくなったことだ。

      次にサリン事件についての弁護団の硬直した方針が裁判を非能率化した。検察側は約4,000人の重軽傷者のうち18人から証言を求めたが、弁護側は全員から証言を求めようとした。

      結果、裁判が7年も続いた。2001年の統計によれば地裁で行われる刑事裁判の平均審理期間は平均8.4ヵ月である。麻原被告の裁判は非常に複雑だが、7年は長すぎる。検察、弁護側が裁判手続きをもっと効率よく進めれば、時間と費用を大きく節約できたはずだ。

      意味不明の独語以外はほとんど黙秘を続けた被告自身にも責任がある。検察側は「被告の態度は被害者や遺族の感情を逆なでするもので、遺族らが極刑を求めるのは当然だ」と論告で述べた。被告が傾聴していたとは思えない。