EDITORIAL: Akita murders

Suzuka Hatakeyama was convicted Wednesday of killing her only daughter and a neighbor's son and handed life imprisonment for the crimes, which occurred over a period of slightly more than a month in 2006. The Akita District Court said Hatakeyama, 35, pushed her 9-year-old daughter Ayaka from a bridge railing into a river, causing her death.

It also said that she invited her neighbor's son, Goken Yoneyama, 7, who was her daughter's friend, into her home and strangled him. She claimed that seeing the boy in such good health when her daughter was dead made her insanely jealous, prompting her to suddenly want to kill him.

For the daughter, the defendant was supposed to have been the one person in the world she could trust. As for the boy, she was a familiar figure in the neighborhood. Her betrayal of the children's trust is unforgivable.

Prosecutors had sought the death penalty. However, the court cited the following mitigating circumstances for its decision: Both crimes were committed on impulse and were not premeditated. Although the defendant cannot be said to have seriously reflected on her actions, it said there was a possibility for rehabilitation.

The ruling then went on to say: "(The court) feels hesitant to declare that there is no other choice but the death penalty." It also urged Hatakeyama to spend the rest of her life trying to atone for the deaths. The three judges must have been seriously torn between the death penalty and life in prison. We agree the decision was difficult.

In this case, the unraveling of the motive behind the crimes attracted attention. Immediately after giving birth to her daughter, the defendant is said to have developed a feeling of repulsion when she was touched. After her divorce, she hardly spoke to her daughter until the child was 5 years old. Even after that, she didn't know how to bond with her and forced her to wear dirty clothes and even refused to give her baths. She often shouted at her to give vent to her stress. She also blamed her daughter for her own inability to find a job.

The ruling suggests that Hatakeyama was an immature parent, who thought caring for her child was nothing but a burden.

The municipal office of Fujisato where Hatakeyama lived had received reports from her daughter's elementary school that she was "always hungry and wearing dirty clothes." A local welfare commissioner visited the defendant's home on a number of occasions but did not regard the case as one of child neglect; nor did the official notify the local child welfare office.

Neighbors were also aware of the circumstances regarding the defendant's daughter. When Hatakeyama heard the news that children on their way to school had been hit by a car and were killed and injured, she sent an e-mail message to a friend saying, "I wish my daughter was among them."

Child abuse represents an SOS from parents. Had the child welfare office learned of such circumstances and taken action, maybe the two children would be alive today.

It is also regrettable that the Akita prefectural police initially mistook the daughter's drowning for an accident. If the police had noted the defendant's child neglect and investigated accordingly, it is possible that the second crime could have been prevented.

Last year, the police made arrests or sent documents to prosecutors in 300 cases of child abuse, a record high. The only way to protect young lives is for each adult to carefully watch over them and shield them from danger. Such attempts are also starting in Fujisato, where the crimes took place.

--The Asahi Shimbun, March 20(IHT/Asahi: March 21,2008)