Japan seeks death penalty for arsonist responsible for fire that killed 36 people

Prosecutors in Japan are seeking the death penalty for the suspect in an arson attack in 2019 that killed 36 people in one of the country’s deadliest crimes for decades, reported The Guardian.

Shinji Aoba, who was not arrested until he had recovered from the burns he sustained in the attack on an animation studio in Kyoto, admitted in court in September 2023 to starting the fire.

However, lawyers for Aoba, who underwent a psychiatric evaluation before standing trial, entered a plea of not guilty, claiming a psychological disorder had rendered him incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong.

He faces five charges, including murder, attempted murder and arson.

The deaths of dozens of people at the Kyoto Animation studio in July 2019 sent shock waves through Japan and prompted an outpouring of grief among fans of the company’s output.

The shock was compounded by the ages of the victims, many of whom were young employees, including a 21-year-old woman. Thirty-two of the studio’s 70 employees and others in the building were injured.

Aoba, 45, who is accused of breaking into the studio’s building and setting light to gasoline he had poured on the ground floor, apologised for the first time on Wednesday. “I feel tremendously sorry and the feeling includes a sense of guilt,” he told the court, according to public broadcaster NHK.

Aoba, who reportedly yelled at his victims to “die” as he started the fire, alleged that the studio had plagiarised his work – a claim prosecutors described as “delusional”.

The studio, commonly known as KyoAni, is known internationally for anime that include K-On! and The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya.

Aoba suffered more than 90% burns and had to undergo 12 operations, according to media reports. He reportedly wept after a successful procedure to restore his ability to speak.

Japan is one of several dozen countries that retain the death penalty, which it reserves for people found guilty of committing multiple murders or aggravated murder.

Although capital punishment has high levels of public support in Japan, authorities have been criticised for their treatment of condemned inmates, most of whom spend years in solitary confinement before being hanged.

The mother of one of the KyoAni victims, a 26-year-old woman, said she wanted her daughter back. “I wish I could go back to that day and die with her, and at least be by her side,” she told NHK.

The court is due to deliver its verdict on 25 January.

To read more CLICK HERE

Police departments are solving far fewer crimes than they did before pandemic

The F.B.I. released data this fall that gives us a glimpse of how policing in America has changed since the disruption of the pandemic years. The evidence is clear: Police departments across the country are solving far fewer crimes than they did before 2020, reported The New York Times.

The clearance rates — essentially the percentage of crimes leading to arrests — for violent or property crimes have dropped to their lowest levels since the F.B.I. started tracking them in the 1960s (though lower arrest standards probably drove the high clearance rates in the 1960s and 1970s).

In 2022 police departments, on average, solved only 37 percent of violent crimes, just over half of murders and nonnegligent manslaughters and only 12 percent of property crimes.

While headlines tend to focus on falling clearance rates in large liberal cities, the decline occurred nationwide in both red and blue cities, counties and states. The violent crime clearance rate, for example, fell considerably between 2019 to 2022 in big cities, which tend to be led by Democrats, as well as in small cities and suburban and rural counties, which tend to be led by Republicans.

Rising crime rates are unlikely to be the culprit. More crime could certainly lead to lower clearance rates — if a department makes the same number of arrests but crime doubles, then the clearance rate would fall as a matter of mathematics — but in fact, the F.B.I. reports that violent crimes fell between 2020 and 2022.

The exact causes of the decline in arrests are difficult to pinpoint, but the timing is clearly tied to the summer of 2020, suggesting that changes in policing and America’s dwindling confidence in law enforcement since the killing of George Floyd played a role.

Sentencing and judicial reform tend to make up the bulk of our policy responses to crime and policing, but this new data suggests that increasing the share of crimes that are solved — especially violent crimes — should be a major focus of policymakers nationwide.

Studies of crime and punishment have shown that a police force’s ability to solve crimes is more effective in deterring crimes than the severity of punishment.

If you were considering stealing a car, the primary factors guiding your choice probably aren’t the charges you’d receive or the time you’d serve if convicted. Instead, you’d be more concerned with the immediate question of witnesses, anti-theft devices and cameras that might bring the police to your doorstep. Moreover, imprisonment may even increase the chance a person will go on to commit crimes after being released.

Unfortunately, police departments are struggling in their efforts to improve their crime-solving abilities.

Many police departments — especially in cities — are much smaller than they were before the pandemic. Low morale and extreme stresses in the departments have led to high levels of resignations among older and more experienced officers and significantly fewer recruits to replace them. This year the number of police officers in New Orleans reached its lowest level since the 1940s, and the numbers in Los Angeles and Seattle declined to levels not seen in decades.

Having fewer officers available to respond to the scene of a crime means fewer clues, fewer witnesses and fewer tips for detectives to go on. It also means significantly longer response times, leaving clues to grow stale and witnesses to disappear before officers arrive.

Staffing shortages also trickle down to the investigative work that happens in offices and labs long after a crime has been committed. For a long time, conventional wisdom pointed to factors beyond the control of law enforcement — such as whether a witness was present or whether physical evidence was left behind — as the primary drivers of solving crimes. The work of the investigator was perceived to matter less.

But newer research from a criminologist, Anthony A. Braga, presents a clear connection between the amount of investigative resources dedicated to a crime and the likelihood of its being solved. It may seem obvious, but it takes bodies, time and sustained effort to work a case.

Another important factor is the change in national attitude toward the police in the wake of Mr. Floyd’s murder in 2020. Polling from Gallup shows that public support for the police has fallen significantly over the past few years. This year only 43 percent of people said they had a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of trust in the police — a 10 percentage point drop from 2019.

The solution to this problem is not as simple as hiring more police officers, especially considering the challenging hiring environment for police departments. Agencies should consider improving their clearance rates by employing more current officers as investigators.

Some agencies have also begun to hire more civilians to help. Civilians can respond to low-level incidents that don’t require an officer, take reports over the phone and aid investigators in solving cases. Civilians are easier and cheaper to hire than officers. They reduce officers’ workloads, allowing agencies to dedicate more time to improving investigations.

An unsolved crime cuts twice: It erodes people’s trust in law enforcement and could encourage others to commit similar offenses. It should be in the interest of all Americans for as many crimes as possible — especially heinous violent crimes — to be solved. It’s unclear whether the recent decline in clearance rates will be permanent, but we should consider the drop to be an early warning sign that police effectiveness nationwide may be in decline.

To read more CLICK HERE

Anti-doxxing law could interfere with outing right-wing extremist

Arguably the most powerful weapon of anti-fascist groups in the Northwest is information, reported Oregon Capital Chronicle. 

Anonymous squads of amateur detectives — parts of groups with names like Stumptown Research Collective, FashFreeNW and Corvallis Antifa — spend months trying to sniff out the identities of those they consider right-wing extremists. 

They pore through photos looking for clues — a ring on a finger, a flash of a recognizable tattoo — and match them with old social media accounts or other sources. And then they “dox” them — short for “releasing documents — exposing their real identities, along with a variety of personal information online. 

In May, for instance, a coalition of anti-fascist groups throughout the West Coast posted to their website an extensive dossier on the man they claim is the heavily tattooed neo-Nazi leader of Evergreen Active Club, a hate group in eastern Washington. 

They directed their readers to the phone number for the construction company he works for. (“Let them know they are employing a Nazi gang leader.”) They pointed to not only his home address, but the emails and phone numbers for his partner’s mom and stepfather. (“Please reach out to them to make sure they know their daughter is a Nazi.”)

Even on the left, doxxing can be controversial — some argue it’s vigilantism, while others see it as the most effective nonviolent weapon they have to fight back against extremists. 

But thanks to a new Washington state law, this type of activism may run the risk of getting anti-fascists sued by the very neo-Nazis they’re exposing. This legislation was pushed by another group dedicated to exposing racists and antisemites — the Anti-Defamation League, a national anti-hate organization. 

“The Anti-Defamation League had witnessed extremists using doxxing tactics to intimidate and harass,” said the law’s sponsor, Washington state Sen. Drew Hansen. “I asked how I could be helpful in efforts to fight back against antisemitism and hate, and this was a proposal that they had been working on.” 

Hansen’s bill, which took effect this July, doesn’t charge doxxers with a crime. It allows people to sue a doxxer if they were harmed — stalked, injured, threatened or criminally harassed — potentially winning $5,000 per violation, plus damages and attorney fees. 

Hansen believes the bill is written narrowly enough that it shouldn’t worry anyone whose intentions aren’t malicious. 

“My bill deals with doxxing only where you actually intend that someone is going to use the information to harm the person or you recklessly disregard that threat,” said Hansen, a Bainbridge Island Democrat. 

Additionally, unlike the similar law passed in Oregon in 2021, Washington’s anti-doxxing law contains explicit protections for journalists. But it’s also notably broader than Oregon’s, allowing people to sue for showing “reckless disregard” of the risk of harassment for publishing personal information, instead of just malicious intent. 

“It seems to me it very well could limit what you call ‘research into extremism,’” Washington state Rep. Jim Walsh, now the state Republican Party chair from Aberdeen, told the ADL during a hearing about the legislation. 

Stephen Paolini, associate regional director of the Anti-Defamation League Pacific Northwest office, told InvestigateWest that groups like his are safe. But he said it is possible that tactics like “‘you should call this person or show up at their house and tell them why you hate Nazis’” could create the kind of harassment that could get you sued under the law. 

He doesn’t think that’s a bad thing. 

“As much as I may align with the goal of calling out Nazis, if you’re doing it in a way that’s opening people up to death threats, or bodily injury or stalking, that’s a problem,” Paolini said. 

In Washingon and Oregon, Paolini said, the anti-doxxing bills had support from “labor unions, advocates for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence, law enforcement, marginalized communities groups, and many others.” 

Still, some activists worry that these laws will be weaponized against those trying to expose extremists or oppose politicians. 

Portland-based journalist Shane Burley, editor of a recent collection of essays from anti-fascist researchers, said the anti-doxxing laws are “scary” and “irresponsible.” 

“It’s a profound misunderstanding of the problem,” he said. “And it will be used against journalists and activists.”

To read me CLICK HERE

No presidential immunity for Donald Trump

The federal judge overseeing former US President Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case ruled that Trump cannot dismiss the four criminal charges pending against him through a claim of presidential immunity, reported Jurist. US District Judge Tanya Chutkan refuted Trump’s claim that, as US president, he enjoyed “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.” Chutkan instead found that “[f]ormer Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability.”

Trump initially filed a motion to dismiss the case based on presidential immunity on October 5. In his motion, Trump claimed that he enjoyed “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for any official conduct he undertook as president. Under that argument, Trump claimed that his actions on January 6, 2021 lay “at the heart of his official responsibilities as President.” Trump argued, “[T]he prosecution does not, and cannot, argue that [his] efforts to ensure election integrity, and to advocate for the same, were outside the scope of his duties.” The government responded, disputing Trump’s claims, in their motion on October 19.

In her Friday decision, Chutkan disagreed with Trump’s reading of the law and denied the motion to dismiss.

Chutkan began by addressing Trump’s argument that a reading of the US Constitution supports presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. Trump’s claims rested—in part—on an argument that, under the Impeachment Judgment Clause of the US Constitution, he could only be charged on crimes that he has also been impeached and convicted of in Congress. Chutkan disagreed with this assertion, finding that “nothing in the Constitution’s text supplies the immunity that [Trump] claims.” Chutkan explained, “There is no evidence that any of the Constitution’s drafters or ratifiers intended or understood former Presidents to be criminally immune unless they had been impeached and convicted, much less a widespread consensus that the Impeachment Judgment Clause would have that effect.”

Trump also raised concerns about the “chilling effect personal liability would have on the President’s decision-making” and the potential criminal prosecutions former presidents could face from federal, state and local officials. He argued that a president might be distracted or hesitant in carrying out his official duties if he knew of such a threat of prosecution.

But Chutkan dismissed his concerns because of the context of the case. Specifically, she said, “Those concerns do not carry the same weight in the context of a former President’s federal criminal prosecution.” In support of her finding, Chutkan referenced prior Supreme Court rulings from the Nixon era and emphasized that “a President ‘of integrity and reasonable firmness’ will not fear to carry out his lawful decision-making duties.”

Chutkan also found no merit to Trump’s claims that denying presidential immunity in this case would “open the floodgates” to further litigation. As Chutkan reasoned, her decision on the applicability of presidential immunity to this case applies to this case—and this case alone.

Chutkan ultimately concluded, “Every President will face difficult decisions; whether to intentionally commit a federal crime should not be one of them.” If she were to grant Trump’s request to dismiss, Chutkan reasoned, the public’s interest in “promoting respect for the law, deterring crime, protecting itself, and rehabilitating offenders” would be thwarted. For those reasons, Chutkan denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, resuming the push towards the March 4, 2024 trial date.

This case is one of four criminal trials—spanning 91 criminal charges—that Trump faces. He is charged with four obstruction charges for conspiring to and participating in efforts to overturn the 2020 US presidential results. He previously pleaded not guilty in August, and he continues to deny the charges.

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino appears on Law and Crime Network discussing YNW Melly trial

 Watch my interview on Law and Crime Network CLICK HERE

DPIC issues end of the year report on the death penalty

 (Washington, D.C.) This year marked the ninth consecutive year where fewer than 30 people were executed (24) and fewer than 50 people were sentenced to death (21) as of December 1, 2023, the lowest number of states that executed and imposed new death sentences in 20 years. The majority of states, 29, have now either abolished the death penalty or have paused executions by executive action.   

The increase in executions from 18 in 2022 to 24 in 2023 can be attributed to Florida’s return to executions after a lengthy pause as its governor launched a presidential campaign. Florida’s six executions were the state’s highest number since 2014, and it imposed five new death sentences, the highest number of any state this year. 

Read “The Death Penalty in 2023: Year End Report” here: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/dpic-reports/dpic-year-end-reports/the-death-penalty-in-2023-year-end-report. 

For the first time, the Gallup poll reported that more Americans (50%) believe that the death penalty is administered unfairly than fairly (47%). Relatedly, a growing number of conservative state lawmakers and some pro-death penalty elected officials publicly supported prisoners with innocence claims, including Richard Glossip in Oklahoma, and raised new concerns about the fairness and accuracy of the death penalty itself. 

“The data show that most Americans no longer believe the death penalty can be imposed fairly,” said Robin M. Maher, DPIC’s executive director. “That important change can also be seen in the unprecedented show of support for death-sentenced prisoners from conservative lawmakers and elected officials this year, some of whom now oppose use of the death penalty in their state.”  

The U.S. Supreme Court turned away most petitions from death-sentenced prisoners, even those with strong claims of innocence, focusing attention on the need for adequate state procedures. Three death row prisoners were exonerated in 2023. With DPIC’s ongoing research uncovering two additional exonerations, the number of U.S. death row exonerations since 1972 rose to 195. 

The death penalty continues to be geographically isolated with only five states -- Alabama (2), Florida (6), Missouri (4), Oklahoma (4), and Texas (8) -- conducting executions this year, tying 2016 with the lowest number of states in 20 years. Together, Texas and Florida accounted for more than half of this year’s 24 executions. 

Only seven states -- Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Texas -- sentenced people to death, also tying the lowest number of states of the past 20 years. The federal government secured its first new death sentence since 2019 (Robert Bowers), but another federal capital trial resulted in a life sentence (Sayfullo Saipov). 

Most of the prisoners who were executed in 2023 would likely not have been sentenced to death if tried today due to significant changes in the law, prosecutorial decision-making, and public attitudes over the past few decades. Today, they would have powerful arguments for life sentences and decisions from juries who better understand the effects of mental illness, developmental impairments, and severe trauma. 79% of the people executed this year had at least one of the following impairments: serious mental illness; brain injury, developmental brain damage, or an IQ in the range considered intellectually disabled; and/or chronic serious childhood trauma, neglect and/or abuse. One-third or eight of the people executed had all three. At least three prisoners were under the age of 20 at the time of their crimes. 

As has been historically true, prisoners of color were overrepresented among those executed and cases with white victims were more likely to be executed. Nine of the 24 prisoners executed were people of color. The vast majority of crimes for which defendants were executed this year (79%) involved white victims. 

Also today, DPIC released “Compromised Justice: How A Legacy of Racial Violence Informs Missouri’s Death Penalty Today” at https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/dpic-reports/dpic-special-reports/compromised-justice-how-a-legacy-of-racial-violence-informs-missouris-death-penalty. It is the third in a series of reports detailing how histories of racial injustice inform the current use of capital punishment in an individual state. 

The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) is a national non-profit organization whose mission is to serve the media, policymakers, and the general public with data and analysis on issues concerning capital punishment and the people it affects. DPIC does not take a position on the death penalty itself but is critical of problems in its application.

Oklahoma carries out the 24th and final execution of 2023

 The 24th Execution of 2023

Oklahoma executed 59-year-old death row inmate Phillip Hancock on November 30, 2023. He was sentenced to death for the 2001 double murder of Robert Jett and James Lynch, according to CNN

Hancock – who had claimed the killings were done in self-defense – was pronounced dead at 11:29 a.m., the statement from corrections director Steven Harpe said.

Hancock’s execution went ahead Thursday morning after Gov. Kevin Stitt declined to halt it despite a recommendation by the state’s parole board that he receive clemency, Hancock’s attorneys said in a statement.

CNN has reached out to the governor’s office for comment. Stitt was not bound by the recommendation of the board, which voted 3-2 in favor of clemency at a hearing earlier this month.

On Thursday, following the execution, Jett’s brother said the families felt they had finally received justice after more than two decades.

“Our families have been waiting 22 years. Two families,” Ryan Jett said, according to CNN affiliate KOCO. “We’ve waited a long time for justice to be served, and it was served.”

Hancock’s attorneys and his advocates – including two GOP state legislators – had argued he killed Robert Jett and James Lynch in a clear-cut case of self-defense, alleging the two victims were known outlaws who attacked an unarmed Hancock and tried to force him into a cage at Jett’s home in Oklahoma City. In a physical altercation, Hancock managed to get control of Jett’s gun and then fatally shot the two men, according to Hancock’s clemency petition.

“We are profoundly sad that Oklahoma executed Phil for protecting himself from a violent attack,” Shawn Nolan, an attorney for Hancock, said in a statement Thursday. “This was a clear case of self-defense and the Governor and the state ignored a wealth of evidence showing that Phil was fighting for his life.”

Hancock’s execution is Oklahoma’s fourth in 2023, per a tally by the Death Penalty Information Center. The state originally intended to execute as many as nine death row inmates this year as part of a broader plan to execute 25 inmates over the course of about two years, beginning in August 2022.

That plan has not come to fruition as envisioned, however: In January, incoming GOP Attorney General Gentner Drummond asked the courts to slow the pace of executions, calling the initial schedule “unsustainable in the long run, as it is unduly burdening the DOC and its personnel,” given the training they need for it.

Additionally, several inmates had their execution dates rescheduled as a result of ongoing court proceedings, Richard Glossip chief among them. Glossip claims he’s innocent of the killing for which he’s supposed to be executed, and his supporters include a bipartisan group of dozens of Oklahoma state legislators, including GOP Reps. Kevin McDugle and Justin Humphrey.

 

Dugle and Humphrey had also backed Hancock’s self-defense claim. And while they say they support the death penalty, they have raised questions about whether it is being administered fairly. Indeed, for the first time in at least two decades, more Americans believe the death penalty is applied unfairly than it is fairly – 50% to 47%, respectively – polling published this month by Gallup showed.

“I am a person who believes in your right to defend yourself,” Humphrey said at a news conference at the state capitol in October to bring attention to Hancock’s case. He described it as one in which an unarmed person was attacked and fighting for his life when the killings occurred.

“From southeastern Oklahoma, we call that self-defense,” Humphrey said, adding it should not have resulted in Hancock being charged with murder. “We let you loose, we don’t even charge you … We as Oklahomans have a right to defend ourselves.”

Hancock’s conviction and death sentence were upheld on appeal, and representatives for the state attorney general’s office argued against clemency at the parole hearing, KOCO reported. The evidence, they said, disproved Hancock’s self-defense claim.

“His unwillingness to recognize that fact and move towards forgiveness for the two lives he stole away should submit his fate,” Assistant Attorney General Joshua Lockett said.

Hancock testified that he had “no choice” but to defend himself, according to footage of the hearing provided by his attorneys.

“I was absolutely terrified for my life. I’ve never felt so alone,” Hancock told the board, calling that moment a “life-or-death situation I did not provoke in any way, whatsoever.”

“I absolutely regret with all of my heart that those men died as a result of the nightmare situation that they themselves created,” he said. “I did what I had to do to save my life.”

Members of both victims’ families testified to urge the parole board not to recommend clemency. Jett’s late parents were never the same after his killing, Ryan Jett told the board, adding, “I don’t claim that my brother was an angel by any means, but he did not deserve to be hunted down in the backyard and killed like a dog.”

Despite the board’s recommendation, Lynch’s brother was confident the execution would proceed as scheduled.

To read more CLICK HERE