Defendant's ability to be responsible is at issue at 4:15 on March 16
A ruling is sentenced by the Yokohama District Court on March 16 to a former employee charged with killing 19 residents at a facility for the mentally disabled in Sagamihara City. While the prosecutor has filed a death sentence, the lawyer is notable at the time, accusing the defendant of being guilty of lack of accountability, and noting what is shown.
In July 2016, defendant Seiji Uematsu, a former employee of the Tsukui Yamayuri-en facility in Sagamihara City, was charged with killing 19 residents.
At the judge's trial, which was held 16 times in January from the Yokohama District Court, the defendant's ability to hold responsibility was an issue, and the prosecutor sentenced the death penalty to be "completely responsible, mean and cruel." In contrast, defendant's lawyer accused him of "not being liable for long-term use of cannabis for a mental illness."
The defendant reiterated discriminatory claims against persons with disabilities during the trial and said, "I think it is wrong to compete for responsibility.
The ruling will be sentenced at 1:30 pm on the 16th, and attention will be paid to what kind of judgment will be given in a terrible case where people in disability facilities were attacked one after another and 19 people were killed. Will be
History of the trial so far
The trial began on January 8 and 16 trials have been conducted.
At the first trial, Uematsu defended himself when he was asked if there was any mistake in the prosecution, stated that he was killing, etc. Was. The presiding judge ordered the court to leave and the hearing continued on that day without the defendant.
The defendant explained to the NHK reporter that he had spoken to him, saying, "I couldn't be convinced just by apologizing for words alone, and thought it was the best way."
The defendant appeared in all subsequent trials, but was always surrounded by six officers, wearing heavy gloves on his hands and bandaging his fingers.
In the third and fourth trials, the records of the bereaved and the victim's family were read out, detailing the state of the victims before their lives and the sadness of sudden loss of their immediate family.
The defendant was questioned four times since the eighth trial, with prosecutors and lawyers, as well as bereaved and victim families directly asking the defendant.
The defendant reiterated his opinion differently from his lawyer, saying, "I believe he has the responsibilities," and repeated the same discriminatory assertion.
While the bereaved family kept their tears and asked questions, the defendants responded without changing their expressions, but in some cases they merely expressed their opinions and did not engage with the questions.
When asked, "What do your parents think if you were killed?"
At the twelfth and thirteenth trials, the physician who conducted the defendant's psychiatric evaluation and the physician who was asked by a lawyer to analyze the defendant's mental state provided their opinions.
A physician who conducted a psychiatrist said, `` It is thought that the defendant had personality disorder at that time, but at the scene of the incident, it is reasonable and makes judgments according to the situation, '' etc. The doctor asked, "It is a 'cannabis psychiatric disorder' with symptoms such as delusions and thought disorders, and the impact of cannabis on the offense should not be underestimated."
In the fourteenth and fifteenth trials, the bereaved family expressed their feelings directly, and their attorneys replaced their thoughts.
One of the family members refuted defendant's claim that "the son was always making happiness," and another family member appealed to shout, "I will never forgive any punishment."
The public prosecutor sentenced the death penalty for saying, "There is no room for excuses for a crime that is incompatible with the values of society that respects the disabled as a single person." At the 16th trial, the defendant's lawyer insisted that he should be acquitted and all hearings were over.
Uematsu accused of being charged
In this trial, Uematsu was charged with six crimes, including murder and attempted murder.
侵入 Intrusion of the building At around 1:43 am on July 26, 2016, I was accused of invading the building for invading the Tsukui Yamayuri Garden in Midori-ku, Sagamihara-shi through the entrance.
▽ Murder and attempted murder and attacked 43 people who had entered the camp from about 1:43 am to about 2:48 am with a knife, killing 19 of them and injuring 24 of them. He was accused of murder and attempted murder.
▽ Arrest and injury During the arrest, two female employees at the facility were arrested and bound by a unity band after being assaulted and charged with injuries to their head and face, and three other employees were held by a unity band. He was also charged with sin. It is alleged that they were not to report to outside.
違反 Violation of the sword law Also, I was accused of violating the sword law with two knives and three knives to use in the case.
The issue is the defendant's ability
In the trial, Uematsu defended the killings and did not dispute the facts. The only issue at the time was whether the defendant was responsible at the time of the case, and both prosecutors and lawyers argued over the credibility of the psychiatrist and the connection with cannabis use.
▽ The prosecutor stated that, based on the results of the mental assessment conducted by the court, "the result of diagnosing the defendant as a personality disorder is highly credible," and "the personality disorder is only a bias in personality and has an effect on responsibility. It does not give. Discriminatory claims against disabled people are not pathological delusions, but singular ideas. "
Regarding cannabis use, he asserted that "the opinion of physicians that defendants had no or little effect on using cannabis was credible."
And from the fact that the incident was systematically made and the site made reasonable and appropriate judgments according to the situation, etc., "It is clear that there was both the ability to judge right and wrong and the ability to control actions accordingly. He was fully responsible. "
He added, "A murderous and ruthless crime that unilaterally killed a victim who could hardly resist. The motive for the crime was incompatible with the values of society that respects disabled people as a single person, and is anti-humane and excuseable. There is no room for this. There is no possibility of rehabilitation in the trial, as there is no possibility of rehabilitation. "
護 Attorney On the other hand, the defendant's lawyer argued that "a psychiatric appraisal that made a defendant, who had many friends and was longing for his juniors a personality disorder, lacked rationality and questioned credibility."
Regarding the use of cannabis, according to the opinion of a doctor who, at the request of a lawyer, analyzed the defendant's mental state and gave a testimony in court, "The defendant was a chronic mental illness due to prolonged use of cannabis. It should be seen as having dominated defendant's actions. "
"At the time, defendants did not have the ability to control themselves with the brakes broken and the accelerator stuck in a strange direction. And she was in a state of insanity because of a mental disorder. "
He asserted at the time that the defendant had no responsibility and should be acquitted.
Defendant's Court Claim
At the trial, Uematsu admitted that he had been killed, etc., and repeated the same discriminatory claims against persons with disabilities.
▽ First trial At the first trial, when the first judge asked if there was any mistake in the prosecution, he stated "No" and acknowledged the killing.
質問 Defendant's question In a subsequent trial, the defendant's lawyer accused him of being `` not mentally responsible for prolonged use of cannabis '' and defendant himself `` It is wrong to compete for responsibility I think we are responsible. "
He further described his actions at the time, saying, "I went to myself to show that I knew it was a crime."
Regarding the reasons for killing residents, he said, "I thought that people with severe disabilities who could not communicate could be killed without the consent of the person or family." "I thought that killing people with disabilities would give them the right to have money," he said.
▽ When the bereaved family asked the defendant who repeatedly asserted discriminatory questions, when the family of the victim who was seriously injured in the case asked, `` Have you ever tried to communicate with the residents as an employee? '' There were also scenes where I was stuck with a typical answer.
Furthermore, in an exchange with the presiding judge, the defendant who answered, `` I sometimes understood the request and the resident laughed, '' said the presiding judge, `` It is not that we were able to communicate. Was there? "
At the end of the hearing, the defendant argued at the end of the hearing, "I will not appeal any judgment. I think the real issue in this case is to think about when I can not communicate." Was.
New facts revealed in record
In the trial, new facts came to light as prosecutors read the record and asked defendants questions.
Reports from staff detained by the defendant revealed the actions taken by Kazuya Ono, 46, who was seriously injured in the incident, such as being unconscious for a time.
"Ono came out of the room after the defendant ran away. He said," It hurts, "and I encouraged him," I'll hurt but I'll do my best. " Come on, it's square, "asked Mr Ono to bring me, and I dialed 110 with my fingers, other than my bound thumb."
After closing the court, Mr. Goji, his father, said about the exchange between the son and the staff exchanged with a serious injury, saying, "I thought Ichiya had been stunned after being stabbed. I would like to praise if I worked hard enough." Was.
Reports from another staff member also revealed that he had resisted the defendant. When the employee was taken into custody and taken to the resident's room, he repeatedly complained, saying, "Please stop. Why are you doing this?"
In court, the defendant himself said in the court that he had said, "I also have a heart for disabled people," but at the time, "I was upset and disturbed, I didn't want to quit. "
We also found that the defendant had confided a plan for the killing prior to the incident, and had persuaded his parents and others to discourage them.
A college friend said in a record that the defendant did not give his opinion even if he said, "I will never stop because I will catch you." It's better to stop it. "
On the other hand, the defendant said in a defendant's question, "When I killed a disabled person, I talked to about 50 friends. More than half of them laughed and felt they agreed."
When asked by a bereaved lawyer about his reaction to telling his parents about killing a disabled person about five months before the incident, he said, "There are many people who grieve if they kill people." I was stopped. "