Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This is a news blog for my Undergraduate Criminology class at Ewha University in Seoul, South Korea for Spring 2010.
-Suh Young Yun
ReplyDelete-[In-depth interview] It’s too soon to ban the death penalty
-This is an article about an interview with a Korean criminologist and a professor at Sookmyung University who is an advocate of the death penalty. She believes that death penalty is effective in the sense that it reduces the number of violent crimes. She says that in the past when we implemented the death penalty, there were fewer violent criminals and thus, capital punishment has accomplished certain results.
However, she doesn’t realize the fact that the decrease in number of violent crimes may not be in correlation to the implementation of executions. The numbers may be affected by a number of different reasons such as social, economic, and environmental. She also speculates that we probably would have had more murders if we didn’t executive criminals. And she adds that nobody knows the answer. But the thing is, if she doesn’t know this for sure, and if no one knows the answer to it, how can she predict that we wouldn’t have had more crimes? If she could cite statistics or numbers to represent trends, it would have been more convincing but mere speculation based on her own predictions doesn’t seem too professional considering the fact that she is a criminologist, a social- scientist.
Moreover, she says that the purpose of capital punishment is not at all about killing people, but to serve as a deterrent which is called “the power of fear”. However, such claim simply tells us that she has been caught up in the myth of capital punishment like the rest of society has. As a social scientist, she should know that execution has a “brutalization effect, which encourages the potential for violence by modeling killing as a justifiable means of righting a perceived wrong.” (p.335) Also, research shows that homicides increase in the period before and after an execution. This is interesting because in the case for suicides in Korea, after celebrities have committed suicide, the number of suicides in the total population has increased. Although this might not be a good comparison, it shows how people are affected by deaths that are publicized. If executions are publicized, it would simply build an idea that killing by the state is justified. This would create more antagonism in the criminals who disbelieve in the state.
All in all, after reading this interview, I thought that there must be more concrete research done in Korean society regarding death penalty so that people wouldn’t speculate about the deterrent effect of executions. That myth needs to be proven that it is a “myth”. Until then, we would all simply buy into all kinds of myths created by the government and death penalty advocates that it really serves the common good.
_______________________________________________
(article below)
(article- interview)
ReplyDelete______________________________________________
Q. People who urge the scrapping of the death penalty say the right to life is one of the basic human rights, and a government can’t deprive criminals of that right. Do you think we should respect criminals’ right to life?
A. The Constitutional Court of Korea upheld the death penalty in February, saying the human right to life could be restricted in some cases for the wider public good.
Does this mean that the human rights of brutal criminals are not protected [by the constitution]?
Yes.
Korea hasn’t carried out an execution since 1998, but 10,000 people have been murdered in the last 11 years. And we have 57 people on death row. Is the suspension of executions one reason for the growing number of murders and other brutal crimes?
People who insist on the abolition of capital punishment say carrying out executions does not help decrease crime. But people who defend the death penalty say we probably would have had more murders if we didn’t executive criminals. Nobody knows the answer. But I think capital punishment is effective in our society. In the past when we implemented the death penalty, there were fewer violent criminals. Capital punishment has accomplished certain results.
If we resume executions, do you think the murder rate will fall?
I don’t know. But one thing that is clear is that capital punishment is being phased out and that’s a worldwide trend. In some ways, I think that is ideal, but we should also take reality into account.
If the death penalty is scrapped, do you think it will encourage people to commit crimes, thinking they won’t be executed?
Yes. If there is no death penalty, people think they can at least save their lives. Psychologists and sociologists specializing in the criminal mind often say criminals tend to be very self-centered, meaning they cherish their lives.
Do you believe fear could prevent people from committing crimes?
That’s what I’m saying. The purpose of capital punishment is not at all about killing people, but to serve as a deterrent. We call it the power of fear.
But sometimes the worst criminals can be rehabilitated after spending up to 10 or 20 years behind bars.
Because of that, I can’t strongly advocate capital punishment. I think this is a task we all have to ponder upon and find solutions for. For now, the idea of capital punishment still exists. Although we have the death penalty, judges are very cautious in pronouncing death sentences. But people who are against capital punishment say we should scrap the idea completely. I think it is too early to erase the word.
The Constitutional Court of Korea ruled the death penalty as constitutional on Feb. 25. Five of the nine Constitutional Court Justices supported that decision. But in 1996, the majority of the court in favor of capital punishment was greater, with seven out of nine judges supporting it. It appears that court support for capital punishment is eroding and that it might be abolished sometime in the future.
It is hard to predict because judicial decisions reflect the social atmosphere at the time. All I can say for now is that the Constitutional Court of Korea made the right decision in February.
Sometimes we read foreign news that some criminals who were sentenced to death are released after 20 years or so because they were found to be innocent.
There is always the chance of misjudgment in the courts. But there are many ways to avoid such mistakes. For example, those convicted have up to three times to make an appeal. Scientific investigations have improved a lot. It’s ideal to introduce many other ways to prevent mistakes, but it’s not right to abandon capital punishment just because of the possibility of misjudgments.
_______________________________________________
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2919429
Shuying Mei
ReplyDelete"Debate Over Death Penalty Heats up"
This article deals with the issue of whether capital punishment should be abolished. For the past decade, South Korea has remained a “death penalty-free state” as no executions were conducted. It was only in 2009 that the brutality of serial killer, Kang Ho-Soon rekindled a debate over this issue. The article states that conservative legislators and civic groups are in support of the implementation of capital punishment as they believe that the death penalty can help to deter similar crimes from happening and that it can also be of benefit to the security of society. While, on the other hand, anti-capital punishment activists who are mostly from religious groups believe that no human have the right to dictate the fate of others, even if they have committed heinous crimes. Moreover, they have also cited judges’ imperfections in ruling and politically-motivated abuse as the main reasons why capital punishment should be abolished.
Although the supporters of capital punishment claim that permanently removing heinous criminals from society serves as a form of deterrence, no evidence of an increase in homicide rates or other crime rates during the death penalty-free period seemed to be given. Therefore, according to the textbook, the perception that capital punishment is able to deter similar crimes and able to make society a safer place may only be just a myth as they have failed to provide any supporting evidence to back up their claims. In addition, the claims that were made by supporters of capital punishment seem to also imply that the criminals that are to be executed will always be the ones that are guilty of committing heinous crimes. However, as what the anti-capital punishment activists have pointed out, there is still the possibility of misjudgments or biasness in the judges’ ruling as it is not possible for any legal personnel to possess complete information. Therefore, the perception that capital punishment will always be a flawless process may also be just a myth, which unfortunately many people in society are inclined to believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
02-02-2009 18:04
Debate Over Death Penalty Heats Up
By Park Si-soo
Staff Reporter
South Korea has been internationally known as a de facto ``death penalty-free state,'' with no executions conducted in the past decade. President Lee Myung-bak's predecessor, Roh Moo-hyun, seriously considered replacing the punishment with life in prison.
But serial killer Kang ho-soon, horrifying people by showing how brutal human nature can be, has rekindled debate over whether the abolition of capital punishment is appropriate.
Conservative legislators and civic groups side with the lethal punishment for the sake of the security of society and the prevention of similar crimes, while anti-capital punishment activists, mostly from religious groups, refute the allegation, saying humans have no right to determine the fate of others, even if they are heinous criminals.
Rep. Park Jun-seon of the conservative ruling Grand National Party ignited recent debate.
In a recent statement, Park claimed the death penalty is the ``only way'' to punish such a criminal as brutal as Kang, who has been arrested on charges of murdering at least seven women.
``I believe every South Korean citizen demands the serial killer be put to death,'' he said. ``Maintaining the death penalty would help reduce such crimes and serve as a `last resort' in keeping those gravely undermining social safety away from society permanently.''
Indeed, many legal experts forecast the 38-year-old will be sentenced to death or at least a life sentence.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Ministry of Justice, a total of 58 criminals are behind bars with confirmed death sentences. But no execution has taken place since 1997, resulting in the country being recognized as a de facto ``death penalty-free state'' by Amnesty International in 2007.
``Taking past cases into consideration, Kang is most likely to receive the death penalty even though it's too early to predict,'' said a judge at the Seoul Central District Court.
Courts here have imposed the death penalty on serial killers with few exceptions.
Yoo Young-chul, who committed the nation's worst serial killing spree by killing 20 citizens, was sentenced to death in 2004. Chung Nam-kyu was also sentenced to capital punishment on charges of murdering 13 people and injuring 20 between 2004 and 2006. Five members of the ``Jijonpa'' crime group were also put to death after kidnapping and murdering five wealthy people in 1994.
The Christian Council of Korea, which represents nearly 45,000 Protestant churches here, or 81 percent of all Korean churches, estimated at 55,000 nationwide, is a rare religious group supporting the punishment.
``The holy Bible justifies the punishment,'' a council member said, without disclosing his name. ``Anti-death penalty activists cite judges' imperfection in ruling and politically-motivated abuse of the penalty as the primary reasons for its abolishment, which we should certainly overcome. But those shouldn't be reasons for the abolishment.''
The National Human Rights Commission issued an official statement in 2005, asking for the repealing of executions.
``Kang is apparently vicious and immoral, which can be blamed publicly, but not seen as a reason for him to be executed by other civilians,'' a commission official said, declining to be named
Korean Catholics and Buddhists support the abolition.
The Catholic Bishops' Conference of Korea clarified its position against capital punishment through an official statement in September 2007. The Jogye Order, the largest Buddhist sect in Korea, asked the administration to scrap the policy in its latest statement.
pss@koreatimes.co.kr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/12/117_38832.html
*Yujung Kim
ReplyDelete*Top court upholds capital punishment
* There has been a big controversy on abolition of capital punishment and efficiency of this system since long time ago.
Capital punishment was once used as a tool by government to threat people who are against it during dictatorship in Korea, like middle east countries do nowadays, so I think it's kind of remainder of past evil practice. And according to the book, efficacy of capital punishment is not clearly proven.
In the article, the court upholds capital punishment mainly because it is not against ths constitution. It is significant
but more evaluation on it's real efficacy might be needed. And Korea has been designated the country as “an abolitionist in practice" since Korea hasn’t executed anyone for more than 10 years so necessity of preservation of the system should
be taken into consideration.
-------------------------------------
For the second time since 1996, the Constitutional Court of Korea yesterday ruled that capital punishment is constitutional.
This time, five of the nine Constitutional Court Justices formed the majority. In November 1996, seven of the nine justices ruled in favor of capital punishment
“The human life is part of basic human rights,” the court said. “However, in order to protect the lives of people or equally important public interests, stripping a person of the right to life in such exceptional situations can’t be considered an infringement on fundamental basic rights ... Capital punishment is a type of punishment allowed by the Constitution and thus it can’t be considered to exceed constitutional limits. It also doesn’t run counter to the constitutional clause on human dignity.”
-------------------------------------
*http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2917135
- Hye sung So
ReplyDelete- Death penalty confirmed for serial killer
- This article is about case of Kang Ho-soon. He killed 7 women and fired his fourth wife and wife's mother's house. He sentenced death penalty. Korea is still recognize the death penalty, however virtually do not execute death penalty.
People remembered him as brutal serial killer, and we implicitly thought that the sentence his got is really right result. We usually think the most heavy sentence to criminal is death penalty. Some people said that it is unfair to use money for inmates who killed many people. Other people believe that death penalty defend people from future killer.
However this is all myth. There is no evidence that capital punishment is more effective as a deterrent to murder than life imprisonment (p.354). I really agreed this insistence. And some argue that the money is wasteful, I can't accept that. If we sincerely deter the more serious crime, we all do something even if it is giving money to inmates.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A death penalty for serial killer Kang Ho-soon was confirmed Tuesday as he decided not to appeal the case to the top court.
The Seoul High Court said that Kang did not submit a written appeal within the designated time, so his sentence of capital punishment, which the court handed down on July 23, was confirmed.
An accused who denies his or her guilt in a criminal case is required to submit an appeal within one week from sentencing, or the punishment is confirmed.
The 39-year-old was sentenced to capital punishment by a lower court and the high court for kidnapping and killing 10 women, including his wife and mother-in-law, between September 2006 and December last year.
He denied the killing of his family members and appealed to the high court, which did not accept his claim.
Including Kang, the number of convicts on death row in Korea now tops 60. This year, two other criminals were also given capital punishment - a 40-year-old man who kidnapped and killed two elementary schoolgirls in Anyang, Gyeonggi Province, and a 31-year-old man who set fire to a cheap accommodation in southern Seoul, claiming six lives.
----------------------
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/08/117_49657.html
Yoon Young Kang
ReplyDelete“Top Court Upholds Capital Punishment”
Although Korean people became more concerned about human life and human dignity, the Constitutional Court’s position that capital punishment is constitutional has not changed; however, the numbers changed – last time, it was constitutional by 7:2 but this time, by 5:4. The rationale for ruling capital punishment constitutional was that when it is used to protect people’s lives or other equally important public interests, it is not against the Constitution.
Also, it was argued that unless it is abused, capital punishment itself is not a problem – the situation can be improved by narrowing the range of crimes that are punished by capital punishment. Here, the Korean myth of capital punishment is that the life of a serious offender who threatened/harmed other people’s lives or other equally important public interests can be justly taken. However, in this case, the weighing of the two – the interest that is to be stripped versus the interest that is to be protected – is crucial.
Whether capital punishment would be abused will depend on how well the weighing process is taken. Another underlying assumption/myth here is that in this democratic society, unlike under the previous undemocratic military regimes, capital punishment would not be abused as much as before. In other words, it means that democracy would prevent the overuse of death penalty. I think this is partially true because in those military regimes, capital punishment was sometimes used to punish the key opponents and silence the rest. Nevertheless, whether democracy would prevent unjustifiable abuse of capital punishment and whether capital punishment would be effective in terms of deterrence is not yet proven.
In addition, I agree that capital punishment should be limited to the minimum – if the range of crimes that are punishable by it is too large, it would make the English proverb “one might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb,” true –meaning that it would encourage law offenders to commit greater crimes instead of deterring them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(article)
ReplyDeleteFor the second time since 1996, the Constitutional Court of Korea yesterday ruled that capital punishment is constitutional.
This time, five of the nine Constitutional Court Justices formed the majority. In November 1996, seven of the nine justices ruled in favor of capital punishment.
The Constitutional Court considered the issue after the Gwangju High Court asked for an opinion involving a 72-year-old convicted killer. The man, named Oh, had appealed to the Gwangju court after being sentenced to death for slaying four travelers in Boseong, South Jeolla, in 2007.
“The human life is part of basic human rights,” the court said. “However, in order to protect the lives of people or equally important public interests, stripping a person of the right to life in such exceptional situations can’t be considered an infringement on fundamental basic rights ... Capital punishment is a type of punishment allowed by the Constitution and thus it can’t be considered to exceed constitutional limits. It also doesn’t run counter to the constitutional clause on human dignity.”
The Constitutional Court’s Chief Justice Lee Kang-kook was among the five who ruled in favor of the death penalty. He was joined by Lee Kong-hyun, Lee Dong-heub, Min Hyeong-ki and Song Doo-hwan.
Lee Kang-kook said denying capital punishment in the name of the right to life runs counter to a proper interpretation of the Constitution. Lee Kong-hyun and Lee Dong-heub said that since only the most brutal of criminals are subject to the death penalty, the punishment doesn’t violate human dignity. Min and Song called for improvement of the system.
“The punishment itself isn’t the problem, but abusing it is,” the two justices said. “We need to review the penalty clauses to reduce the number of crimes subject to the death penalty, and to gather public opinion to improve the situation.”
Justices Kim Hee-ok, Mok Young-joon and Kim Jong-dae argued that capital punishment clearly violates the right to life that is stated in the Constitution. Cho Dae-hyen said the punishment was only partially unconstitutional because Article 110 of the Constitution permits capital punishment at military trials.
As of yesterday, there were 59 death row inmates in the country. One of those has been in prison since 1992, while 36 have been locked up for at least 11 years.
According to the Justice Ministry, 920 people have been executed since the Korean government’s foundation in 1948. The last execution came in December 1997, at the tail end of the Kim Young-sam administration. Twenty-three convicts were executed then. It had been customary for a Korean administration to carry out multiple executions toward the end of its term.
Since President Kim Dae-jung took office just days later, there has been a moratorium on execution. Kim himself was sentenced to death in 1980 before being pardoned.
Since Korea hasn’t executed anyone for more than 10 years, Amnesty International labels the country as “an abolitionist in practice.” There are 34 other nations in that category.
The decision yesterday was greeted with mixed reactions from different activists. Jeon Hee-kyung of Citizens United for Better Society said until the crime rate takes a big drop, it would be “premature to discuss abolishing the death penalty.”
Human rights activists and religious groups have long called for abolition of the death penalty. Amnesty International Korea issued a statement yesterday saying the Constitutional Court’s ruling doesn’t justify capital punishment and called for the National Assembly to work on abolishing it altogether.
-------------------------------------------------
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2917135
-Jun So-min
ReplyDelete-Lawmakers call for resuming execution
-This article is about the ongoing debate among lawmakers on whether to abolish capital punishment. Since the killing of a 13-year-old girl in Busan by Kim Kil-tae, there has been public uproar on reinforcing capital punishment. It's been nearly 13 years since Korea ever executed a prisoner with a death sentence and the increase in serial killing in Korea encouraged the public, as well as lawmakers, to reconsider the imposition of capital punishment.
This is related to the myth that the death penalty is efficient. According to the book, political leaders and the public has a belief that death penalty is the efficient and they rely on this "highest form of punishment", believing it will work as deterrence. However, this is only a myth, and in my opinion, there is more than the safety that they feel. People sometimes want to believe that the death penalty will be used as a form of retribution.
---------------------------------------------
By Kang Hyun-kyung
Staff Reporter
Senior ruling party legislators urged law enforcement authorities Friday to resume capital punishment.
Their request came after the apprehension of Kim Kil-tae, a prime suspect in the kidnapping, raping and killing of a 13-year-old girl in Busan, sent the nation into a frenzy.
Rep. Lee Ju-young of the ruling Grand National Party (GNP) said it was premature for the nation to abolish capital punishment as 60 percent or more of people still support it.
"Under the current law, the death penalty is legal, and the Constitutional Court supported it in a ruling," he said in an interview.
Rep. Lee further claimed that capital punishment shouldn't be used as a standard when determining whether a nation is advanced or not when it comes to the protection of human rights.
"Countries like the United States, Japan and Singapore that have higher standards in human rights implement the death penalty. Therefore it is not fair to say that countries having capital punishment are backward in terms of human rights," he said.
Korea has not executed anyone for the past 13 years since Nobel Laureate Kim Dae-jung won the presidency in 1997.
In 2006, the Ministry of Justice announced that the nation was considering replacing capital punishment with a life sentence without parole. Human rights groups called on the government to abolish the punishment.
But proponents said the death penalty should be applied to some criminals, such as serial killers and child molesters and abusers.
Recently, public anger against suspected offenders of child sex crimes and child molesters prompted proponents of capital punishment to raise their voice.
GNP floor leader Ahn Sang-soo called on the law enforcement authorities to carry out the death penalty on convicted serial killers and offenders of child sex crimes.
Rep. Noh Young-min of the main opposition Democratic Party (DP) opposes it.
"It is understandable that the simmering public anger against suspected child molesters have caused lawmakers to look to the death penalty, but policymakers need to be careful when carrying out such punishment," he said.
--------------------------------------------
URL:http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/03/116_62268.html
Name: Mai Cha Vang
ReplyDeleteTitle of Article: Brutal Slaying Testing Tacit Ban on Capital Punishment
Commentary: The recent rape and homicide in Busan is threaten to shake Korea’s reputation as a “death penalty abolitionist in practice”—a status that has live ten years in record. Though not practiced, death penalty still exists as an option in the criminal justice system. This incident particularly brought to light the importance of the existence of the death penalty and its companion of the ongoing dispute of its usage.
The choice over whether to use it or not turned out to be more complicated than it seems. In the case of Korea within the context of this article, there are two factors to consider: the nation’s reputation of a “death penalty abolitionist” and belief that it is an effective method to prevent crime. One side argued that the death penalty is an effective method to prevent crime. The supporters are both religious and from the Grand National Party. The opposing side’s argue for Korea to main its reputation and position as a honored country that respects the right to life. The supporters are some from the religious section and the National Assembly.
Regardless of who the supporters are, there is no doubt that international relations in politics play an influenced role in Korea’s decision to utilize the death penalty or not. Unfortunately, the premises from both sides do nothing to prevent crime. To borrow a quote from the book: “The premise that society is safer when individuals are executed for their crimes is based on myth (pg. 335)” This myth seems to be fit really well with supporters of the death penalty. The question is: how do they know that? Or is this claim more a “sense of comfort” knowing that the perpetrator is dead and won’t harm more victims”? This sense of safety leaves room for questions such as “what about the next perpetrator?”
Like an official said [in the article], the ultimate decision is up to the president. If he chooses to go ahead with the death penalty, Korea will greatly disappoint the international community. If he say no to the resumption of the death penalty, he will disappoint many Korean citizens. [It is very likely that the answer will be yes because an execution facility is being built.] From the article, whatever the president chooses, it is not because of social research [There is no mention of anywhere in the article about using the support of social research as a factor in making a decision] because the myth of capital punishment persists in serving as a façade of deterrence and his outlooks on international relations.
------------------------------------------------------
Brutal slaying testing tacit ban on capital punishment
법무장관 발언으로 불붙은 사형제 존폐 논란
Diplomatic concerns may play trump card in hot debate
The rape and murder of a teenage girl in Busan is testing Korea’s years-long suspension of practicing capital punishment.
The controversy was stoked Tuesday after Justice Minister Lee Kwi-nam said the government is “carefully reviewing the possibility of carrying out executions.”
During his visit to Cheongsong Prison, where many of the nation’s worst offenders are housed, Lee ordered the construction of an execution facility there.
.......
more (check out actual article)
-----------------------------------------------------
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2917989
Go-Eun Kim
ReplyDeleteSerial Murderer Kills Himself in Jail
The serial killer Jeong Nam-Gyu was sentenced to execution in 2007 for killing 13 women including two minors. Jeong committed suicide using a noose from a plastic bag though some officials says the death was due to brain damage. Apparently Jeong was discontent about the government’s policy to give a break to capital punishment but not abolishing it as a whole. Capital punishment has been an issue of hot debate ever since the rise of individual rights in Western countries and NGOs such as Amnesty has been advocating the abolishment of capital punishment. Korea’s last executions were in 1997 when 23 criminals were executed. Ever since then it has not put execution into action even though people are sentenced to them in court.
I recently watched a movie called ‘The Green Mile’ where prisoners given the death penalty wait for their execution day and when that day comes they are executed. The prisoners on the movie seen to have lost their minds by the time that day comes due to the fear and stress of having to live without knowing when they will die, but that they will die soon. One prisoner sits on the electrocution chair and begs for forgiveness saying that his sorry and he would not go it if he was to go back. Capital punishment may be efficient for a sudden shock in society however in the long run suicides like these committed due to lack of attention and in reason of capital punishment just makes it look more ineffective.
----------------------------------------------
Jeong Nam-gyu, a serial killer who was in prison, committed suicide in his cell, Sunday.
/ Korea Times
By Kwon Mee-yoo
Staff Reporter
Jeong Nam-gyu, 40, a serial killer imprisoned while awaiting execution, committed suicide in his cell Sunday.
The convicted murderer killed himself Saturday morning in his cell at the Seoul Detention House in Uiwang, Gyeonggi Province, south of Seoul.
According to the Ministry of Justice, the inmate on death row hung himself with a noose made from a plastic bag. Upon being discovered by a guard, Chung was rushed to hospital, but he died Sunday morning.
He did not leave a note, but officials found a memo in his private notebook. It said, "The government is not considering abolishing capital punishment. Life is like a cloud, coming and going transiently."
The Ministry of Justice said Jeong might have been aware that the death penalty was becoming a social issue and uncertainties regarding his execution may have driven him to take his own life.
Doctors concluded that he died from brain damage caused by hypoxia, but the ministry still requested an autopsy by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation to confirm the cause of death.
Jeong was sentenced to death for the murder of 13 people, including two minors, and for inflicting serious injuries upon them while sexually assaulting them, during a period from January 2004 to April 2006. He was convicted in 2007 and sentenced to death.
----------------------------------------------
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/11/113_55932.html
Eun Bin Suk
ReplyDelete"President Lee’s thoughts on capital punishment… Agrees to existence of death penalty, but cautious of execution"
For over ten years since 1997, Korea did not execute the death penalty. However, it is not abolished and citizens are divided on this issue of maintaining or abolishing the capital punishment system. The current president of Korea Lee Myung-bak is in favor of maintaining the death penalty to prevent crime, but he has a very careful position on executing the penalty. He says “crime against humanity should be actively responded.” The government is now working on making a death penalty facility on Cheongsong prison to gather all the death-row convicts. However, since President Lee is very careful of executing death penalty, the death-row convicts such as Kim Gil-tae and Yoo Young-chul are awaiting execution. Factors of political, social, and legal effects have to be taken into consideration for this issue of capital punishment. Korea as a host of G20 Summit Meeting has also an eye to look out for in the international arena. And also various groups are protesting against death penalty.
I believe that the capital punishment should be maintained. Serious offenses such as murder, willfully taking another person’s life, should be punished. It is important to maintain the system in order to deter crime. Loosening the penalty will not decrease the crime rate. As an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, there should be death penalty for those who committed wrongful acts of murder against the innocent. Though the judge and the jury needs to carefully weigh out all the possible evidence, heinous offenses such as serial murder cases have enough reason to punish with death penalty.
----------------------------------------------
President Lee’s thoughts on capital punishment… Agrees to existence of death penalty, but cautious of executing
Under current law, death penalty can only be executed under the “command of the Minister of Justice”; but in reality, taking consideration of the political and social wavelength, the President decided personally on execution. (Person concerned from Cheongwadae, the Blue House) “It is almost impossible to execute the death penalty without the approval from the President.” Then, what is President Lee Myung-bak’s stance toward capital punishment. President Lee never publicly announced his position. However, putting together words of the Blue House advisers on the 17th , President Lee agrees with existence of death penalty, but is cautious of actually executing the penalty itself. One Blue House adviser said, “I know that President Lee fundamentally has a very careful attitude toward death penalty.”
The public sentiment on death penalty fermented during Kang Ho Sun case and really, the Blue House examined the possibility but eventually just passed by. Another adviser said, “President Lee has a strong idea on respect for life, against the abortion. Then how can he decide easily on killing life.” Here, Christian elder President Lee’s religious belief also took into effect.
(cont.)
ReplyDeleteThere is more realistic reason for the President Lee to be cautious of death penalty. Precisely, the G20 Summit Meeting held in Seoul. It is not easy to execute the death penalty as a chairman of the G20 meeting when the international community such as the EU recommends abolition of death penalty. One Blue House adviser said, “The death penalty is related to diplomacy and trade problems.”
Then, how did Minister of Justice Lee Gwi Nam’s remark come about. Blue House person concerned, “Really Cheongsong (prison) is a good place to accommodate serious offenders, one wished to gather people of heinous crime, there is no capital punishment facility there, so there is an executive problem of not being able to send death-row convicts there.” Under current law ‘the death penalty is executed inside the prison” (criminal law 66).
When the Minister Lee’s remark became controversial, the Ministry of Justice later reported to the Blue House, “he didn’t mean to execute death penalty but to build a facility to gather all the death-row convicts to Cheongsong.” Since the 8th when the President said during chief secretary meeting, “crime against humanity should be actively responded,” the Ministry of Justice examined a ‘concentrated holding’ measure. Also, last year during Cho Du Sun’s case, “he said child sexual offender should be isolated from the society the entire lifetime.”
However, President Lee is not against capital punishment itself. During the past presidential election, he said, “Taking into consideration the national duty of preventing crime, capital punishment should be kept. But one should fix excessive charges of being able to sentence death penalty.”
------------------------------------------------
http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/03/18/2010031800140.html
Maëlig Le Delliou
ReplyDelete« Legislature should do what judicature failed to do »
This article tackles many myths about capital punishment.
It clearly argues that the popular beliefs according which death penalty deters crime and provides some kind of comfort to the victims’ families are both wrong. As explained in the textbook, many studies proved that death penalty has no deterrent effect.
Also, the article refers to the fact that even in the recent history of South Korea, people have been wrongly sentenced to death (cf. former president Kim Dae-jung), and that still nowadays, some death row inmates have been condemned for political or ideological reasons and not for committing “atrocious crimes”. It is a fact that there is a tangible risk of executing innocents.
But probably the most interesting myths the article discusses are:
1) The idea that all good/efficient justice systems must have death penalty
2) The idea that it is “too early” and that we should wait for the public opinion to change
The first myth is criticized in the textbook. Death penalty is highly symbolic and politicians use this symbol in their campaigns: defending the death penalty is a sign that they will be tough on crime. The symbolism is even more obvious in South Korea, where no prisoner has been executed since 1997, but where the Court persists in maintaining death penalty (the Constitutional Court recently ruled that the death penalty was still constitutional). The author says that it is might be a question of “national dignity” for Koreans, as the US, China and Japan all maintain death penalty.
The idea that it is “too early” is a myth I’d like to examine more into details. Public opinion in Korea is mostly in favor of the death penalty (6 vs 4 Koreans support the death penalty). However, public opinion is slow to change and is often not well-informed about the realities of death penalty. Many people think of death penalty as a rightful retribution and deterrent, when in fact it is not.
I believe sometimes the law should make changes preceding the changes in public opinion.
In France, the death penalty was abolished in 1981 despite 60% of the population supporting it; after the law was voted, public opinion evolved very quickly and the politician responsible for the abolition of death penalty is very popular. Of course, when horrible crimes are committed, people will still say that death penalty should be restored for that particular case, but they are prejudiced and do not think objectively, so that does not mean we should maintain or reinstate the death penalty following the public’s wishes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ReplyDelete[…]
In a 5-4 decision, the top court said in effect that although capital punishment should be abolished someday, it is still too early to do so now. It was the same logic the nation's highest tribunal used 13 years ago when it also ruled the state's taking of citizens' lives constitutional.
Equally anachronistic are the reasons the court cited for retaining the ultimate penalty. The majority of judges wrote that capital punishment is the ``rightful reward" for and ``effective prevention" of heinous crimes. But penal studies both here and abroad have long found the death penalty neither deters crime nor provides a sense of closure for victims' families.
Even more importantly, there remains an unforgivable ― and irrevocable ― risk of executing an innocent person, which explains why the right to life must not be limited in any way and under any excuses, despite what the judges said. This is especially true in Korea, where there are as many as 110 offenses punishable by death with only 12 of them being atrocious crimes, and most others, political, economic and ideological ones.
[…]
Considering the world's three biggest economies ― the United States, Japan and China ― are among the 58 countries that retain the death penalty, this seems to have more to do with national dignity than economy. The EU has made its abolition as a precondition for membership.
[…]
It is hard to deny the top tribunal's ruling reflects the popular sentiment here, which reportedly favors the death penalty at a ratio of 6 to 4. Not many countries, however, have done away with death penalty following public opinion. When France abolished capital punishment in 1981, for example, 60 percent of its people supported it. A decade later, the same percentage approved its abolition.
Probably in light of all these circumstances, the court referred this issue to the court of the legislature. The National Assembly has toyed with its abolition throughout the past decade but taken no concrete action. It is time for the Assembly, especially the governing Grand National Party, to take the lead in the repealing of laws on capital punishment, if for no other reason than lifting the ``national prestige," as the Lee Myung-bak administration has been addressing so emphatically.
Koreans should also realize this is not a matter between death-row convicts and the rest of the citizens but an issue between the state power and all citizens. It was only some decades ago that dictatorial regimes committed ``judicial murders" of political dissidents and other innocent people under false charges of state subversion.
----------------------------------------
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2010/06/202_61517.html