2.2. In his speech the prosecutor left out religious aspects of the case

Before we begin to talk on the subject, let us take a look at the prosecutor’s arguments. What do they tell us about the defendant Asahara and his religious group?

‘The defendant had an insatiable desire to wield power and to control others. He had tried to satisfy this desire since he started Shinsey-no-kai. The system of the ministries was set up to directly transfer the will of the accused who as a holy spiritual ruler was all-powerful and was at the very top of the community’s structure’.

‘Having as a basis peculiar and extremely dangerous teachings, the accused gave orders to his disciples and made them perpetrate various unlawful actions, including the incident under consideration’.

‘Although among the facts related to the incidents under considerations, there is no direct evidence that the accused gave orders to commit crimes through Murai (we cannot get this evidence because Murai is now dead) but if we examine everything carefully, we can easily establish the fact that the accused did give orders to Murai’.

That means that the prosecution’s point of view is as follows, ‘The teachings of the accused Asahara are peculiar and very dangerous’. ‘He is a man with a limitless appetite for power and control. Since he started AUM Shinsey-no-kai he had acted only to satisfy his desire to wield power and exercise control and he had sought to become an all-powerful holy ruler’, that is why ‘he gave orders to his disciples to commit various unlawful actions, including the incidents under consideration’.

You might nod in agreement, ‘Yes, yes… he’s like that’, because this is exactly the picture created for you by the media.

Here, however, I must point out the most typical examples of the prosecution’s accusations which are absolutely groundless, and the arguments which are not backed up by any evidence, but on which the prosecution insists. The reason why Mr. Asahara was prosecuted was his image made up by the media.

But the prosecutors did not take the trouble to arrive at their conclusions using objective evidence. Instead they made use of the ideas common among the public.

This is impermissible when justice is administered.

next>>