In this blog post, we will look at whether the death penalty system in South Korea actually contributes to crime prevention and social safety.
South Korea is a de facto abolitionist country with a death penalty system that is not implemented. This has important implications for the international community, and the death penalty is currently being abolished around the world. As the discussion on the morality and effectiveness of the death penalty continues, there is a growing number of people in South Korea who are in favor of abolishing the death penalty. In fact, there are many countries around the world that have completely abolished the death penalty, and many others have abolished it legally or except in exceptional circumstances such as wartime. In addition, most countries that have the death penalty do not execute people, effectively abolishing the death penalty. Nevertheless, I believe that even if the death penalty is not actually carried out, the death penalty system should not be abolished.
The death penalty system in South Korea is based on the laws mentioned in the Constitution and the Criminal Code. In 2008, a lawsuit was filed with the Constitutional Court against the death penalty system. At that time, the death penalty system was ruled to be constitutional, and one of the judges’ grounds for the ruling at the time was this opinion. “In order to clarify the dignity of human beings and the dignity of human life, there may be exceptional circumstances in which it is inevitable to deprive human beings, who are the destroyers, of their lives. Therefore, as long as the death penalty is understood as limited to the provision of the death penalty for crimes against humanity, it cannot be considered to be in violation of Article 10 of the Constitution. In addition, it is difficult to evaluate that the inclusion of the death penalty in the scope of statutory penalties for crimes against humanity itself is a violation of the right to life. Therefore, the death penalty cannot be seen as an infringement on the essential content of freedom and rights.” This ruling makes it clear that the death penalty still plays an important role in the country’s criminal justice system. Even to ensure the dignity and value of human life, there may be unavoidable situations in which the life of a criminal who has harmed him or her must be taken. This is tantamount to a decision by the state to not recognize the dignity of life for those who have taken the life of another person. In this regard, I believe that it is necessary to maintain the death penalty in order to enhance the dignity of life.
The reason why there are still countries that maintain the death penalty even though they do not practice it is because of the crime-preventive aspect of the death penalty. In fact, in the United States and Japan, the death penalty was abolished, but after the abolition, the crime rate increased rapidly, and the death penalty was even revived. This shows that the deterrent effect of the death penalty cannot be ignored. In South Korea, the number of murders has been increasing by an average of 193 cases per year since 1998, when the death penalty was not properly enforced. Not only is the number of murders increasing, but the quality of the crimes is also getting worse. The proportion of deliberate murders committed through planning is gradually increasing, and the crime rate continues to rise despite this. This means that even in an environment where the death penalty exists but is not carried out, the crime rate is rising, and if the death penalty is abolished, this situation may worsen. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain the death penalty in order to maintain public order in Korean society.
There is also an argument that the death penalty does not directly affect crime rates. In fact, Canada abolished the death penalty in the 1970s, but crime rates continued to decline thereafter. There is no consistent relationship between the existence or absence of the death penalty and crime rates around the world. In the United States, the presence and enforcement of the death penalty varies from state to state, but the crime rate does not show a consistent trend. However, this is only because the overall trend does not appear, and within individual regions, a consistent trend may appear depending on the presence or absence of the death penalty. In Japan, when the death penalty was abolished, the crime rate increased significantly, and when the death penalty was reinstated, the crime rate tended to decrease again. Similarly, in South Korea, the crime rate has been rising since the death penalty was abolished, and the proportion of planned heinous crimes is increasing. From this phenomenon, it would be reasonable to maintain the death penalty in South Korea to achieve the goal of crime prevention.
Another issue related to the death penalty is the possibility of innocent people being executed due to miscarriages of justice. The possibility of miscarriage of justice, which can be said to be the biggest flaw of the death penalty, was also mentioned in the process of constitutional appeal. However, there is a logical leap to abolish the death penalty for this reason. First of all, the death penalty is the highest level of punishment, so it goes through many screening processes and is only imposed after the clear context of the crime is determined. In this process, the probability of an innocent person being sentenced to death is extremely low. Mistriking is more likely to result in a lower level of punishment than the death penalty. In the case of South Korea, efforts are being made to minimize the possibility of misjudgment through the court of appeal system, and efforts are continuing to strengthen the capabilities of judges to reduce misjudgments and improve technology to ensure the accuracy of the investigation process. Therefore, the argument that the death penalty should be abolished because there is a possibility of miscarriage of justice is not valid. The death penalty, which is irreversible, should be treated with caution, but since South Korea is a de facto abolitionist country and does not execute the death penalty, the maintenance of the death penalty is important in a symbolic sense. Therefore, the argument for abolishing the death penalty does not fit the reality of South Korea.
It is true that the death penalty is not being carried out around the world. However, it is clearly different to maintain the death penalty from actually carrying it out. In the case of South Korea, the crime rate has shown that the death penalty is effective in preventing crime. Also, considering that South Korea is a country that has abolished the death penalty, the possibility of a miscarriage of justice is low, so there is little chance of a major problem arising from maintaining the death penalty. Above all, the Constitutional Court has recognized that the death penalty is constitutional, and it is necessary to maintain the death penalty system to promote stability in Korean society. The death penalty system plays an important role in the country’s criminal justice system as a last resort to deter crime and ensure social safety. For this reason, the death penalty system should not be abolished, and it is desirable to maintain the current system.
