I have a question about the death penalty system.

for me.
People have various ideas, various circumstances, and various causes for committing crimes, so I don't think there is a single correct answer.

Once upon a time, there was a serial killer called Angli Mara in India. I met the Buddha when I was about to kill the 100th person, and I woke up and became a disciple.
The Buddha doesn't punish him. It leads to enlightenment.

In other words, if criminals also reflect, I think they should be forgiven.

However, when Anglimara was walking around town with alms afterwards, she was thrown a stone by the bereaved family, hit with a stick, and eventually killed.
The Buddha said it was a natural reward, so please endure it.

From here on, if you create a causal retaliation, and if you create an evil cause, you will naturally receive that reward. Even the Buddha can't stop this, and I think the feelings of the bereaved families are natural.

Without the death penalty, bereaved families would kill criminals. That too is a well-deserved reward.
However, in that case, there will also be bereaved families who will be fought back, and the bereaved families of criminals who were killed on the contrary may also retaliate.
The grudge continues endlessly.
I think there is also an aspect where the death penalty system is useful in order to stop that grudge from continuing.
The death penalty is a natural reward.

However, since it seems that there are many false charges recently, sufficient verification is necessary, and if possible, I think it is possible to receive compensation in another form, such as life imprisonment instead of the death penalty, depending on the feelings of the bereaved family.

Carbuncle_Male_To_X

As for the death penalty system in Japan, execution regulations are stipulated from the paradoxical interpretation of Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan, which is the supreme law, punishment regulations in Section 9 of the Criminal Code, section 11 of the Criminal Code, and sections 475 to 479 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The death penalty system is within the balance between the legal interest protection function and the human rights guarantee function of criminal law, and it has been thought from the past that the death penalty system in the case of Japan emphasizes the legal interest protection function as a crime deterrent in retaliation criminal theory/objective criminal theory (in Japan, the position of relative retaliation criminal theory).

Anyway, in the case of Japan, I think it is possible to say that the public has accepted the paradoxical interpretation of Section 31 of the Japanese Constitution that “according to procedures stipulated by law, people can be legally killed,” and that they accept the legal basis and execution basis for the death penalty in the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code.

Next, from a Buddhist standpoint, there is “immortality” (you must not kill living creatures unnecessarily). The reason for immortality is that if murder is an act due to anxiety or the ignorance (fundamental ignorance) of a worried parent, that act becomes a “bad work” that causes reincarnation where people lose their way and continue to suffer.

Then, if it is an act not due to anguish or ignorance (for example, as an act of pure goodness or mercy), it is quite difficult to determine whether murder is permitted, although there is of course room for recognition in some cases. (It's also a place where ordinary people can't judge lightly.)

For example, as in the content of your question, it is a life sentence without the death penalty, and it comes out of prison after 20-30 years, but there is no room for correction at all, and when it is clear that they will surely kill many people if they go out into society, the question is whether taking that person's life (putting it to death) is actually something that can be tolerated in terms of Buddhism in order to protect many precious lives. The question is whether it is actually possible to say that murder as a death sentence is not an act due to agony or ignorance at all, in terms of Buddhism...

In the case of Buddhism, if you consider the issue of “karma” (karma) and accept the death penalty system, if it is malicious negligence (you know it and leave it carelessly without correcting it), there is no denying the fear that it will become your own misconduct.

up to this point due to the character limit...

Kawaguchi Hidetoshi Gassho

　Previously, I was asked from the standpoint of “shouldn't the death penalty be abolished?”
Please refer to the answers at that time.
http://hasunoha.jp/questions/2648

I have the role of a teacher, so I go to jail regularly to help rehabilitate inmates.
It is called individual education, and in response to requests from individual inmates, memorial services are held for the parents and siblings of the incarcerated person and memorial service is held for the victim, and then time is taken for the interview. There are also many people who kill lives and are imprisoned for life or long periods of time. There are times when I wonder why this person committed a heinous crime. There are also people who say treatment is difficult and lack the motivation to “let's be rehabilitated.” They committed murder during a gang conflict, were frightened by retaliation from rival organizations, and said, “I want to get out of the repetition of this kind of thing.” There are also people who say that. Even from a general point of view, “changing people” is not an easy thing, and I think there are many cases where it is impossible. Similarly, I feel that it is quite difficult to rehabilitate criminals.
If the death penalty were abolished and given a life sentence, could that criminal be rehabilitated? To be clear, I think it's difficult. Is there a possibility that criminals will be rehabilitated by abolishing the death penalty? How can we improve the current judicial system and execution system? I have yet to hear a proposal with such specificity.

I believe abolition of the death penalty is desirable. However, considering the point of deterring crime, I think the death penalty has a more deterrent effect than a life sentence.

Murder is a crime in every country. The country in question commits the crime of murder due to “war and the death penalty.” I think this is a “contradictory story.” The current situation in the world is that few countries still have the death penalty, and if there is a life sentence, Japan will be able to graduate from the death penalty system someday. Also, in future history textbooks, it will be written that “Japan once had a death penalty system.” People in the future will say, “That was barbaric back then, wasn't it?” (As is the case with wars,...) I believe that.