People who oppose the death penalty say although there are some processes which criminals are judged that he or she should be sentenced the death penalty or not, we cannot completely eliminate possibility of false accusation and if people are judged falsely, we cannot compensate them in cases of the death penalty because they would died. Actually, there were 4 cases which are proven as false accusations after the World
War II in Japan, but every case is proven as a false accusation before going to the scaffold. These cases occurred during 1980s.
As opponents say, it is true that there were false accusations and even now, we cannot completely get rid of possibility of false accusation, but I think it is not important. For one reason, it is true that there are a retrial system and a three-tiered judicial system and they have worked well because there were 4 false accusations in the past two decades, but
in all cases, they were proven as innocent before misjudged people die. That is exactly a evidence of which these systems can be the deterrent effect of which people are judged falsely and got killed. For another reason, there false accusations are too old. As some supporters say, occurring false accusations of a main reason was forced confessions, but
recently, it is not regarded as important according to some scientific investigations. So, we can say that there is no false accusations since 1990s means that these scientific investigations also work well. In addition, a court started to use an idea "in dubio pro reo"...