Abe Road: Kuwata Keisuke’s Beatles Parody

In May 2009, when the Japanese LDP government was in a weakened position, Kuwata Keisuke, lead singer of popular rock band Southern All Stars, performed a parody of the Beatles’ Abbey Road on his weekly television show. Backed by a band performing an uncanny cover of the album, he rewrote the lyrics into commentary on corruption in Japanese politics, fiscal problems, the death penalty, and other political issues. This performance was highly unusual: Japanese recording artists rarely engage in politics. The recording and broadcast industries disallow lyrics on controversial topics, and management discourages artists from engaging in politics. Kuwata staged his rebellious gesture as a “mishearing” of a well-known album. Kuwata transformed Abbey Road into political parody through linguistic sleight of hand. Kuwata chose Japanese lyrics with similar vowels and consonants (as demonstrated by their proximities on the International Phonetic Alphabet) to make them sound like the original English lyrics. By presenting his acrid commentary as a parody of this much-loved album and thus framing it as humorous entertainment, Kuwata was able to publicly criticize Japanese politicians.

Legal Comparison against the Death Penalty Sanctions regulated in the Positive Laws of Indonesia and China

Corruption is a severe problem worldwide, so it takes a strict rule of law and strong law enforcement efforts to eradicate it. China's legal system has proven to be effective in reducing corruption among state officials. One of China's anti-corruption efforts is to impose harsh penalties on perpetrators, including the death penalty. In light of this success, this study will conduct a legal comparison with the death penalty, which is regulated in Indonesian and Chinese positive law. The type of research used is normative juridical with a conceptual and statute approach. The data processed in this study include primary data and secondary data with data collection techniques and management using a literature review. The findings of this study highlight the threat of the Death Penalty, as outlined in Article 2 Paragraph (2) of the Corruption Crime Act, which focuses on corrupt acts committed under certain conditions. In Indonesia, no one has ever been sentenced to death for corruption. The People's Republic of China's Criminal Law of the death penalty threat has existed since 1900 AD. Article 383 of the Chinese Criminal Code stipulates that anyone who accepts bribes is subject to the death penalty. A significant difference from this Comparison lies in the classification of capital punishment with a corruption amount of more than 50,000 Yuan and for bribery cases in Chinese regulations. Meanwhile, there is no such regulation in Article 2 paragraph (2) of the Indonesian Corruption Laws.

The Basis for the Philosophy of Legal Protection for Death Penalty Convicts Who Are Not Executed Immediately After the Verdict Becoming Legally Binding

Fundamentally, all forms of punishment are deprivation of human rights. One of the most severe punishments in criminal justice system is death penalty which is specifically aimed at serious crime. Several mechanisms as a form of legal protection for death convicts are judicial review and clemency petitions. Problems arise due to the time difference in the waiting period, which is not limited and in some cases even reaching 20 (twenty) years. Meaning, death penalty convicts have experienced two sufferings at once (double suffering) which is certainly contrary to the principle of punishment in the context of modern criminal law. The research aim is to analyse the basis for the philosophy of legal protection for death penalty convicts who are not executed immediately after the verdict becoming legally binding. This research is a normative legal research with the approach of Law, History, Comparison, Philosophy and Cases. The legal materials used are primary, secondary and tertiary with analytical techniques using perspective analysis. The results of the study indicate that in the future there must be uniformity regarding the waiting time limit regulated in the legislation, namely a period of 10 (ten) years as a form of legal protection for death penalty convicts, so the effectiveness of the death penalty as a preventive and repressive means can be realized.

Likeability and Expert Persuasion: Dislikeability Reduces the Perceived Persuasiveness of Expert Evidence

With the use of expert evidence increasing in civil and criminal trials, there is concern jurors' decisions are affected by factors that are irrelevant to the quality of the expert opinion. Past research suggests that the likeability of an expert significantly affects juror attributions of credibility and merit. However, we know little about the effects of expert likeability when detailed information about expertise is provided. Two studies examined the effect of an expert's likeability on the persuasiveness judgments and sentencing decisions of 456 jury-eligible respondents. Participants viewed and/or read an expert's testimony (lower vs. higher quality) before rating expert persuasiveness (via credibility, value, and weight), and making a sentencing decision in a Capitol murder case (death penalty vs. life in prison). Lower quality evidence was significantly less persuasive than higher quality evidence. Less likeable experts were also significantly less persuasive than either neutral or more likeable experts. This “penalty” for less likeable experts was observed irrespective of evidence quality. However, only perceptions of the foundational validity of the expert's discipline, the expert's trustworthiness and the clarity and conservativeness of the expert opinion significantly predicted sentencing decisions. Thus, the present study demonstrates that while likeability does influence persuasiveness, it does not necessarily affect sentencing outcomes.

Public Fundraising Campaign By Migrant Care For Liberation of Migrant Worker Satinah From Death Penalty In Saudi Arabia

Fundraising is not a common thing anymore. Especially if the fundraising is about the social campaign that will attract people’s sympathy. Fundraising that Migrant Care did as one of the most successful public fundraising. Migrant Care had successfully collected 2,8 billion rupiahs in 2 weeks. This fundraising is for Satinah, an Indonesian migrant worker who was sentenced do death penalty because she was charged with murdering her employer. Migrant Care is non-governmental organization which protect the rights of Indonesian migrant workers stated their disappointment towards the Indonesian government that didn’t help Satinah. Because of their disappointment, Migrant Care held the crowdfunding for Satinah’s diyat. The method that used in this research is qualitative descriptive with interview and documentation with Carl Hovland’s theory SMCR (source, message, channel and receiver).

Testing Death Penalty Opinions With General Questions and A Specific Case Scenario: Potential Lessons From China

Despite rich literature on public opinion on capital punishment, only a few studies examined people’s death penalty support within specific contexts. None have explored if correlates that influence people’s opinion would hold the same effect in general questions and specific case scenarios. Similarly, the Marshall hypotheses have not been tested with specific crime scenarios. Based on a sample of 1,077 students in a quasiexperimental design, this study contrasts Chinese students’ death penalty opinion in general questions with a specific crime scenario, and tests the Marshall hypotheses with the latter. Compared to their support in general questions, students’ support for death sentences dropped significantly in the specific crime scenario. Multivariate analyses showed that different factors influenced people’s decisions in the general questions and in the specific case, and respondents’ choices of preferred punishment in the specific crime scenario failed to lend support to the Marshall hypotheses.