Japan executes convicted 'Twitter killer' who killed nine
Japan has executed a man convicted of murdering and dismembering nine people in his apartment near Tokyo, the country's Justice Ministry announced.
Takahiro Shiraishi, the so-called "Twitter Killer", was sentenced to death in 2020 for murdering nine individuals, most of whom had expressed suicidal thoughs on Twitter.
The killings shocked the country and prompted a nation-wide debate on how suicide is discussed on social media platforms.
Investigators say that Shiraishi used Twitter to contact his victims — most of them young women between the ages of 15 and 26 — offering to help them carry out their sucidal wishes.
He was arrested in October 2017, after police discovered the bodies of eight teenage girls and one woman, along with one man, inside cold-storage containers in his apartment.
'This case caused devastating harm and sent shockwaves through society, instilling deep fear and unease,' Justice Minister Keisuke Suzuki said at an emergency press conference.
He confirmed that he signed the execution order earlier this week but did not witness Shiraishi's hanging.
The execution — which is the first time since 2022 that Japan has enacted capital punishment — comes amid gorwing debate in Japan over the future of the death penalty ignited by the acquittal last year of Iwao Hakamada, the world's longest-serving death row inmate.
Suzuki defended the use of the death penalty, citing a recent government survey showing strong public support for executions — although opposition has increased slightly.
'I do not believe abolishing capital punishment is appropriate,' Suzuki said, adding that concerns over serious crimes persist.
Shiraishi was executed by hanging at the Tokyo Detention House. As is standard practice in Japan, the execution was carried out in secrecy and not disclosed until after it was completed.
According to Suzuki, Japan currently has 105 inmates on death row, including 49 seeking retrials.
Executions in Japan are conducted in secrecy, with inmates only informed of their fate on the morning of their execution. Since 2007, Japan has begun releasing the names of those executed and some details of their crimes, although disclosure remains limited.
Japan and the United States are the only members of the Group of Seven industrialised nations that retain the death penalty.
Japan's most recent execution occurred in July 2022, when a man convicted of killing seven people during a vehicle and stabbing rampage in Tokyo's busy Akihabara district in 2018 was put to death.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
France 24
an hour ago
- France 24
US Supreme Court upholds Texas age-check for porn sites
The court's decision will impact a raft of similar laws nationwide and could set the direction for internet speech regulation as concerns about the impact of digital life on society grow. Texas is one of about 20 US states to institute checks that porn viewers are over 18, which critics argue violate First Amendment free speech rights. Other countries such as France, Britain and Germany also enforce age-related access restrictions to adult websites, while companies like Meta are lobbying Washington lawmakers for age-based verification to be carried out by smartphone giants Apple and Google on their app stores. The Texas law was passed in 2023 by the state's Republican-majority legislature but was initially blocked after a challenge by an adult entertainment industry trade association. A federal district court sided with the trade group, the Free Speech Coalition, saying the law restricted adults' access to constitutionally protected content. But a conservative-dominated appeals court upheld the age verification requirement, prompting the pornography trade group to take its case to the Supreme Court, where conservatives have a 6-3 supermajority. Under the law, companies that fail to properly verify users' ages face fines up to $10,000 per day and up to $250,000 if a child is exposed to pornographic content as a result. To protect privacy, the websites aren't allowed to retain any identifying information obtained from users when verifying ages, and doing so could cost companies $10,000 daily in fines. During arguments in January before the Supreme Court, a lawyer representing the Free Speech Coalition said the law was "overly burdensome" and that its goal could be accomplished using content filtering programs. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the mother of seven children, took issue with the efficacy of content filtering, saying that from personal experience as a parent, such programs were difficult to maintain across the many types of devices used by kids. Barrett also asked the lawyer to explain why requesting age verification online is any different than doing so at a movie theater that displays pornographic movies. The lawyer for the Free Speech Coalition -- which includes the popular website Pornhub that has blocked all access in some states with age verification laws -- said online verification was different as it leaves a "permanent record" that could be a target for hackers. During the court's hearing of the case in January, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, both Republican appointees, seemed to suggest that advances in technology might justify reviewing online free speech cases. In 1997, the Supreme Court struck down, in an overwhelming 7-2 decision, a federal online age-verification law in what became a landmark free speech case that set a major precedent for the internet age.
France 24
an hour ago
- France 24
US Supreme Court backs parents opting children out of LGBTQ-themed books
The justices were reviewing an appeal brought by Christian and Muslim parents against a Maryland public school district that, in 2022, introduced books aimed at combating prejudice and discussing gender identity into kindergarten and elementary school curricula. The court found that the parents were likely to succeed in their claim that denying them the ability to withdraw their children from such instruction "unconstitutionally burdens" their right to exercise their religion. "For many people of faith, there are few religious acts more important than the religious education of their children," wrote Justice Samuel Alito in the majority opinion. He added that the books in question "are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected," citing the normalization and celebration of same-sex marriage as one such example. In the dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor -- joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson -- argued that public schools "offer to children of all faiths and backgrounds an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society." "That experience is critical to our Nation's civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs," she warned. President Donald Trump has taken aim at diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across the federal government, with particular focus on transgender issues. His Justice Department backed the parents in the case, calling the school district's policy "textbook interference with the free exercise of religion." © 2025 AFP
Euronews
6 hours ago
- Euronews
Orbán warns of 'legal consequences' over banned Budapest Pride march
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has warned on Friday that anyone involved in this weekend's banned Pride of Budapest march will face "legal consequences". Claiming the move was needed to protect children, Orbán's conservative government passed legislation earlier this year that allows police to prohibit public LGBTQ+ events. Despite the ban, Budapest's liberal Mayor Gergely Karácsony has vowed to go ahead with the Pride march in the Hungarian capital on Saturday. Speaking to Euronews, Karácsony claimed the event was "perfectly legal". "The Hungarian Parliament has passed an amendment to the Assembly Act, which means that Pride, which is covered by the Assembly Act, was not authorised by the police," Karácsony explained. "However, we're instead organising a municipal event, which is not covered by this law. The municipality is inviting the people of Budapest to another event in its own public spaces, organised by itself, so it is perfectly legal." Minister of Justice Bence Tuzson quickly claimed that the march does fall under the Assembly Act and is therefore prohibited. Tuzson said that Karácsony could face one year in prison and a fine for organising the event. Hard-to-dodge fines Those involved in Saturday's march could also be forced to pay fines. As well as approving the use of AI-powered facial recognition to identify people at banned events, Orbán's party, Fidesz, has streamlined the process of issuing them with financial penalties. Kristóf András Kádár, the co-president of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, a human rights organisation, told Euronews that the Budapest mayor has a strong legal case, but that participants may still be fined. "I think that ultimately the reduction or cancellation of the fine can be achieved through different legal procedures," Kádár said, "But at least temporarily they need to be paid." Fines are not the only concern. There is also a growing fear that violence from other groups could pose a serious threat to Pride participants. Hungarian police have authorised the counter-demonstration of the far-right Our Homeland (Mi Hazánk), which is set to partially overlap with the planned route of Budapest Pride. Orbán has urged people this week not to take part in the Budapest Pride march. "If someone does something like this, then there is a clear legal procedure, which must be followed", Orbán said. "But we are a civilised country, we don't hurt each other, we've never had a civil war here, maybe a little bit in '56, but we don't hurt each other even if we don't agree. It's not part of Hungarian political culture," he added.
