Life Sentence Sought for Yamagami in Abe Shooting Case

The case had drawn attention over whether prosecutors would seek the death penalty, but instead requested life imprisonment, a move that legal experts have described as appropriate and restrained under existing sentencing standards.

Masataka Kamei, a lawyer commenting on the case, said the prosecution’s request was consistent with the Nagayama criteria, which guide sentencing in capital cases. With one victim killed, the hurdle for seeking the death penalty is high unless the act can be clearly framed as political terrorism. While an attack on the democratic system would be treated as exceptional, Kamei said prosecutors had not established that level of intent, making life imprisonment a reasonable request.

Prosecutors argued that the danger posed by the crime was extreme, noting that Yamagami fired a homemade pipe gun in a setting where many people could have been injured or killed. They cited evidence of planning over several years and a strong intent to kill. They also stressed what they described as a disregard for human life, pointing to the lack of a convincing explanation for why the target shifted from figures linked to the former Unification Church to Abe, calling the act impulsive and self-centered.

Kamei agreed that firing a weapon in a public setting created serious risk and said the planning and intent were particularly striking. He added that while Yamagami’s targets changed over time, suggesting it was not a matter of choosing a single specific individual, this tendency supported the prosecution’s view that the crime reflected a disregard for human life.

Questions have also focused on why Abe became the target. According to court testimony, Yamagami stated that if he could not reach figures associated with the religious group, he decided to attack Abe instead, maintaining that the former prime minister was not his original focus. However, observers noted inconsistencies in his explanations, with some saying he struggled to clearly articulate the shift in motive during questioning.

Another key point raised by prosecutors was the limited prospect of rehabilitation and the need to align the sentence with past precedents. Kamei explained that if rehabilitation were deemed impossible and the risk of reoffending high, prosecutors would typically pursue the death penalty. In this case, however, they appear to have concluded that rehabilitation remains possible, supporting a life sentence. He added that when compared with past cases resulting in life imprisonment, the facts of this case fall squarely within that range.

The defense, by contrast, has argued that a life sentence would be excessively harsh, urging the court to limit punishment to a fixed term of up to 20 years. Central to that argument is Yamagami’s difficult upbringing and his claim of being a victim of religious abuse. Kamei said that while general hardship in childhood is usually not heavily weighed in sentencing, the issue of religious abuse could resonate differently with lay judges, even if professional judges and prosecutors are less likely to be swayed by it.

While acknowledging that a fixed-term sentence remains legally possible, Kamei said he did not believe this was a case suited for such punishment, adding that the prosecution clearly views life imprisonment as appropriate. As this is a lay judge trial, however, the final outcome will depend in part on how ordinary citizens assess the defendant’s background.

During the proceedings, Yamagami chose not to take the witness stand at the final stage, a decision Kamei interpreted as a sign that the defendant had already said what he intended to say. He added that expressions of remorse, while common, were unlikely to affect the outcome in this case.

The defense has also pointed to broader social changes following the crime, including moves to address issues faced by children of religious groups, arguing that society should reflect on the circumstances that led to the act. Prosecutors countered that personal background is unrelated to the victim and cannot justify altering the overall framework of sentencing, stressing that violence is never permissible in a society governed by the rule of law.

With a verdict expected in January, attention is now focused on how lay judges will balance the gravity and danger of the crime against the defendant’s background, a judgment that will determine whether the court ultimately imposes life imprisonment or a lengthy fixed-term sentence.

Source: YOMIURI

Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: newsonjapan.com