Akihabara Killer Sentenced To Death

On June 8, 2008, 25-year-old Tomohiro Kato drove a rented truck into a crowd in Tokyo's geek paradise, Akihabara. He got out and began stabbing random pedestrians. In his wake, seven were left dead and ten injured.

Today in a Tokyo district court, Kato was sentenced to death. The presiding judge stated that Kato was of sound mind and the killings were premeditated.

Before the killings, Kato apparently posted messages on a website, stating that he was going to kill people in Akihabara. He picked Sunday, because the main street in Akihabara was closed to vehicles and crowded with pedestrians.

In the days following the attack, the Japanese mass media tried to make a connection between his attack and video games, basing their conjuncture on a picture he drew in high school of character in role-playing game Tales of Destiny.

While the defence attempted to avoid the death plenty, Kato is previously quoted in a letter to one of the victims as saying he should be sentenced to die. Kato, now 28, wrote, "My crime deserves death."

Earlier this year, Akihabara began closing the main drag to vehicles on Sunday and is once again only open to foot traffic.

加藤智大被告に死刑判決…秋葉原無差別殺傷事件 [YOMIURI ONLINE][Pic]


    Harsh, but fair. Though I don't see how his admission that he deserves death would support that decision. It shouldn't have any bearing, I would think.

      It doesn't really seem fair to me. No-one really has the right to kill another human. This guy did some fucked up stuff, he should be locked up for a long long time and needs alot of mental health help.

      Seven lives for one.

      You call that harsh?

        Are you seriously saying you can morally count human beings as potatoes?

        Sorry a 1000 for 1, 1 for a 1000, it's wrong either way.

          Doesn't deserve death? Tell that to the families of the victims

            You're not getting it, are you?

            Maybe the families of the victims are feeling enough (unlike you) to understand that *nobody* deserves to be murdered.

            Just because someone murdered someone else doesn't mean it's okay for someone else to murder them.

            Two wrongs do not make a right.

            Sure he should be locked up so he can't do it again, but he should not be killed. Instead help with his mental health until he's deemed okay to be let out, if that ever is.

            And what a ruling... nobody who kills another person is 'of sound mind'. Most people are just too ignorant to see that, imo.

    I always thought death penalty was an easy way out, as opposed to spending the rest of your life locked up in jail, but after seeing a documentary about an australian bloke who was sentenced to death in indonesia it really hit me how terrifying it is to know your going to be killed on a certain date a certain time.

      Plus it costs a lot to keep someone in prison for life. Especially if he is only 28, that's ~50 years worth of food and occupied space in a prison.

      It might be an easy way out, but why should our hard earned tax dollars be spent keeping the scum of the earth alive?

        He isn't any less of a human from having committed these crimes. If law decides that the correct punishment is life imprisonment instead of death, then we either put up with the burden on society or violate some of the base principles of society.

        You two realise that the cost of killing a man (in places like the US and Japan where they do it properly) is far greater than locking him up for life, right? It's not like they just walked him out the back of the court and shot him in the head. The costs of the judicial proceedings, and then costs associated with killing are massive. And beyond that, Japan has a very, very small prison population compared to the US, or even Australia, so the cost would probably be low in comparison. Conclusion: the death penalty is a stupid and costly punishment that does not effect or even partially prohibit crime. It is just a political device, and you should feel foolish for buying into such ugly, idiotic garbage.

          Not to put it too simply, but if it costs a country more to kill someone than to keep them alive for thirty years, then they certainly are not 'doing it right'.

          But that's bureaucracy for you.

    In Japan they tend to not execute for many years, sometimes decades. The prisoner is kept in complete isolation from others and they are only informed of there impending death an hour before the execution takes place. So there system is a combination of solitary confinement for many years and the unease of never knowing when your time is up.

    ... oh god.. I was only there two months ago.. literally January 25th I was there, augh.. thats so scary...that store you see with the sega on it.. i was in there...

      Rosie, you do realise the attack was in 08. If you think it's scarey to go places where people got killed years ago you'll likely have to stop leaving the house.

      As for his sentence I have ambivalent feelings towards the death sentence.

      In Tassie they still have Martin Bryant locked up (with no hope of rehabilitation or release) after the Port Arthur incident. He has tried to kill himself numerous times and we dont have the death sentence, so money gets funnelled into keeping him alive against his own will. Wouldn't the death sentence suit everyone? i'm sure the families of the dead would feel like he has been punished if he were to die.

      Keeping someone locked up for life while they know they will never be free and not even letting them do themselves in is worse than killing them.

    I'm pretty sure it costs more to kill someone than to keep them in prison for life. At least in the states anyway.

    If it costs more to kill than to incarcerate they're doing it wrong, and should just go a firing squad, or dumping the offender into a deep pit and forget about them.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now