在死刑存废的问题上，民意是无法避开的难题：任何国家考虑废除死刑时，都会面临民意阻力。即使废除死刑后，民意对死刑的呼吁也不会断然停歇。死刑民意研究对死刑制度改革至关重要。 民意内涵可以作两层解释：民意表达的是民众对事物的认知与态度。死刑民意是民众对死刑的客观认知与基于前者主观态度的集合。死刑民意的产生过程具有合理的内在逻辑——民众通过对死刑的客观认知产生情感倾向而具有个人态度。在现代文明社会中，民众是推动国家制度改革与发展的主体，民意为制度改革与发展提供理论依据与实践意义。然而，民意对死刑存废的价值存在不同观点：多数保留死刑的国家肯定民意是存留并适用死刑的必要根据，甚至因“偏听”民意推崇死刑适用。但对民意是否最终决定死刑废留仍需在历史经验中寻求答案。更多时候，民意处于被动、非稳定的状态，而不应然与死刑命运交缠。 日本、韩国与印度在地缘上与我国一衣带水，拥有相似的文化价值观念，其死刑制度发展与死刑民意的关联各有特点。通过对日本、韩国与印度死刑立法规定、司法实践与死刑民意的考察发现： 首先，日本、韩国与印度的死刑民意和死刑立法、司法实践之间存在部分相同的价值关联：从调查数据来看，民众死刑态度对死刑司法实践影响甚微；从死刑司法表现来看，死刑执行受制于总统个人意志与执政理念，无意于民众态度；从死刑民意成因来看，民众支持适用死刑的报应刑理论逐渐衰微，因此更加无法支撑因民意为由保留死刑制度的合理性。 其次，日本、韩国与印度死刑民意表现的差异性与各国死刑司法环境和政治制度紧密相关。日本政府从民意的成因、表达与价值三个方面对其层层操控，民意成为存留死刑的托辞；韩国民众因死刑司法逐渐改变死刑观念，实则受到政治理念与社会文化观念的影响；印度民众对死刑的支持更加体现于个案而非制度本身，成为废除死刑的现实障碍。 正确认识民意有利于政府推动民主的社会法治化进程，而科学、规范的民意调查机制是正确认识死刑民意的必备条件。在存留死刑制度的前提下，完善死刑制度、明确死刑适用标准以提升司法公信力，改善民众对死刑制度的认知。另一方面，国家应从司法上严格控制死刑以推动死刑制度改革，将死刑只适用于剥夺他人生命、严重危害社会安全的暴力型犯罪。是故，为了推动死刑改革并能够顺利废除死刑，国家应当更加科学地引导死刑民意，更加审慎地规范死刑制度，更为严格地控制死刑司法。

With regard to the issue of death penalty abolition, public opinion is a difficult problem that cannot be avoided: When any country considers abolishing the death penalty, it will face public resistance. Even if the death penalty is abolished, the public’s appeal for the death penalty will not be suspended. The death penalty public opinion study is extremely crucial to the reform of the death penalty. The connotation of public opinion can be interpreted in two meanings: Public opinion expresses people's perception and attitude toward things. The public opinion of death penalty includes the objective recognition of death penalty and the collection of subjective attitudes based on the former. The formation of public opinion follows a reasonable internal logic - people have personal attitudes through the emotional tendency based on the objective cognition of death penalty. In most modern civilized societies, the public is the main impetus that promotes the reform and development of the national institutions, and therefore public opinion provides the theoretical basis and practical necessity for institutional reform and development. However, public opinion has different views on the advantages of retention and abolition of death penalty: Most countries which retain death penalty affirm that public opinion is a necessary basis for the retention and application of death penalty, and some even “selectively listening” to public advocates who favor the death penalty. But the answer of whether public opinion ultimately plays a critical role on death penalty should be sought in historical experiences. More often than not, public opinion is passive, unstable and therefore should not be intertwined with the fate of death penalty. Japan, South Korea, and India have similar cultural values with China due to their geopolitical situations, and each has its unique relationship between its death penalty system and its public opinion. By studying the legislation, judicial practice and public opinion of death penalty in Japan, South Korea, and India, we found that: Firstly, Japan, South Korea and India share some of the similarities in terms of legislation, judicial practice and public opinion of death penalty. Based on the survey data, people’s attitude towards death penalty has little effect on the judicial practice of it. From the perspective of judicial practice, the death penalty execution is subject to personal will and governing philosophy of the president, but not decided by public attitudes. Also from the perspective of the rationality of public support for death penalty, the principle of retributive punishment as people’s support for death penalty is gradually weakening, and therefore public opinion is not able to support the retention of death penalty. Secondly, the differences of public opinions are closely related to the judicial environments and political systems of the death penalty in those three countries. The Japanese government manipulated the public opinion from its causes, expressions and values. Public opinion has become a pretext for the death penalty. The people of South Korea gradually changed the perception and attitudes towards death penalty. However, it was deeply influenced by political ideas and social and cultural values. The public support of death penalty in India is more manifested in individual cases than the system itself, which results in a practical obstacle to the abolition of death penalty. A correct understanding of public opinion is conducive to the government's promotion of a democratic social legalization, for which a scientific and standardized public opinion investigation mechanism is needed. Under the premise of the retention of death penalty, the death penalty system should be improved and the applicable standards should be clarified so as to enhance the credibility of the judicial system and improve the public's knowledge of death penalty. On the other hand, the state should control the judicial practice of death penalty strictly to promote the reform of death penalty system, and apply the death penalty only to violent crimes that deprive others’ lives and seriously endanger social security. Overall, in order to promote the reform of death penalty system and then the abolition of the death penalty, the state should more scientifically guide public opinion on death penalty, more prudently regulate the death penalty system and more strictly control the death penalty justice.