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-Courts go light on violent occupiers
-This article talks about prosecutors complaining that courts’ sentences are too lenient on labor union protestors. But in the last sentence of the article, a prosecutor says that there are no real discussions about punishment measures of labor union protesters. My question here arises: if there are no real punishment measures about the “crime,” what does the prosecutor base his argument on? Is his argument of a lenient ruling simply based on his own standard of measurement?
While reading this article, what I felt was that the prosecutors were seeking sentences that seemed perhaps too long or too harsh on the protestors. If they prosecuted them with a shorter sentence, they wouldn’t be so disappointed in the first place. (This is based on my perspective that there’s no point in jailing the protestors for seven years when they’re simply fighting for wage increases or sometimes just to resist being fired without a reason.) From what I perceive, the courts would have probably accepted the shorter sentence because it would not have been an excessive sentence compared to the “crime.” However, Korean prosecutors tend to (not always, but usually) seek harsh punishments for those they prosecute and when the results are not as what they expected, they blame the court for being lenient.
The court being “lenient” is not a myth. In fact, there cannot be a myth since there aren’t statistics on the court being too lenient or too harsh on this matter because there hasn’t been much discussion on the issue, as the prosecutor claims. Rather, what we must consider is “what” the standard is for leniency. Without a standard of determining what is lenient or not, no one can really claim that the court is being lenient. If the prosecutors really want to make an argument, they could, as the book did, research international statistics on the number of people convicted of violent union protests and what kind of punishments they received due to the act. Otherwise, claiming that the court is being too lenient may simply be viewed as an argument too far-fetched.
_______________________________________________
Six months after the Ssangyong Motor labor union ended its occupation of a factory, 55 members have been convicted. However, courts have so far chosen to mete out lenient sentences, prosecutors complain.
ReplyDeleteSo far, 43 were handed suspended jail terms in their first trial. Of the 11 who were given actual prison terms, seven were granted suspended sentences by appeals courts.
Another member was fined, with no jail term.
Prosecutors say even the sentences at the original trials were soft. But now they are nearly nonexistent, they say. Prosecutors argue the courts’ leniency is in contrast to the government’s position that it would sternly punish those responsible for the incident. The 77-day seizure of the automaker’s factory in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi cost Korea’s fourth largest automaker 316 billion won ($269 million) lost in production. Occupiers also injured riot police sent to control the situation. Protesters used slingshots, Molotov cocktails and burning tires to repel officers.
Kang Ji-hyun, the spokesman of the Korean Metal Workers’ Union welcomed the reduced sentences. “The rulings by the first trial was politically motivated but we find the second rulings fair.”
A prosecutor who spoke on condition of anonymity complained he can’t understand why courts suspended prison sentences of protestors who were very active in the strike.
“Courts give too lenient sentences at trials related to politically-motivated and illegal strikes and that goes against the government’s principle of no mercy for illegal labor activities,” the prosecutor said. “In its first ruling, the Suwon District Court’s Pyeongtaek branch gave imprisonment sentences which were deemed to be stern and appropriate decisions. In the second trial, however, other courts reduced seven out of 11 protesters’ sentences and they eventually received suspended sentences. We need to wait and see how the ruling over 22 other protesters [that include Han Sang-kyun, the head of the Ssangyong Motor labor union] will be made this Friday, but I doubt there will be a big difference between Friday’s ruling and the previous rulings.”
Prosecutors in January sought a seven-year jail sentence for Han and terms of between two to five years for 21 other union leaders. The Suwon District Court’s Pyeongtaek branch will make it rulings on Friday.
The Suwon District Court’s Pyeongtaek branch gave a suspended jail sentence to a man surnamed Cho, a 39-year-old senior unionist at the Incheon chapter of Korean Metal Workers’ Union. Cho had been indicted on charges of injuring Ssangyong Motor workers with metal pipes and bamboo spears when they tried to enter the Pyeongtaek factory complex and resume production.
In a second trial, the Seoul High Court last month gave a suspended sentence to a Ssangyong unionist surnamed Lee, 33, overturning the first two-year sentence by the Suwon District Court’s Pyeongtaek branch. Lee was indicted on charges of shooting slingshots and throwing Molotov cocktails at police forces that tried to gain access into the factory.
In the first ruling, judges said Lee deserved a jail sentence as he spearheaded the attack against riot officers. To prevent national and social losses caused by the illegal strikes, the judges said in the ruling that, “it is necessary to sternly ask Lee to take responsibility for his wrongdoing.”
But judges at the Seoul High Court reduced Lee’s sentence, arguing Lee just followed orders from his union leadership and joined the strike because he didn’t hear specific reasons from the company why he was being laid off.
The prosecutor said after the public learned that Cho Du-sun, the rapist of an 8-year-old girl, only received a 12-year jail sentence there was a public outcry and punishments for violent crime were increased.
“However, there are no real discussions about punishment measures for cases like the Ssangyong Motor strike,” the prosecutor continued.
By Kim Mi-ju, Kwon Suk-chun _______________________________________________
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2916355
1. Ye Eun Cho
ReplyDelete2. Courts Lenient on White-Collar Criminals
3. This article is about how courts are lenient to white-collar criminals than street criminals. These white-collar criminals are mostly CEO, executives of companies and in charge of bribery, fraud. Lenient rulings have made it harder for companies to reform, and courts have fault in this. White-collar criminals are judged in laws of specific crimes and is filed in a different category. All crimes should be dealt with fair punishment.
--------------------------------------
By Kim Tae-jong Staff Reporter The nation's judicial system is much more lenient on white-collar crime offenders than that of so-called street crime violators, research by a civic group revealed. The revelation is based on research by the Solidarity for Economic Reform, which analyzed 137 court rulings on white-collar crimes between 2002 and the first half of this year. Even though a significant number of white-collar criminals deserved aggravated punishment due to the malicious nature of crimes, the rate of suspended their sentences given is far higher than that of other offenders, the civic group said. ``The judicature avoids pursuing white-collar criminals rigorously," said Choi Han-soo, a researcher from the civic group. ``The court has passed too many sentences.'' The probation rate in the court ruling on white-collar criminals stood at 71.1 percent. A total of 106 of 149 executives and CEOs who were accused of fraud, bribery or embezzlement, were placed on probation. If the probation rulings in appeal trials are added to the probation rate, the figure reaches 83.9 percent. The rate is much higher compared to rulings of other offenders. The rate of probation in street crimes, individual fraud and embezzlement stood at 47.6 percent and 47.5 percent, respectively, from 2000 to 2005. ``The irony is that white-collar criminals are dealt with by the Additional Punishment Law on Specific Crimes and their punishment is light,'' Choi said. The special law imposes a maximum three-year prison term on an offender who earns profits between 0.5 billion won and 5 billion won from illegal activities, or life imprisonment on a violator who earns profits over 5 billion won. The civic group plans to call for stricter penalties on white-collar crime offenders to the Sentencing Commission at the Supreme Court, which was launched on May 4, and is responsible for the sentencing policy of the court system. ``They should take more responsibility for the protection of the rights of their company and shareholders, but over lenient rulings on them have made it harder to conduct constructive reform for a company,'' Choi said.
-----------------------------------------
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/TTS/NATION/2007/08-22/8802.xml
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYoon Young Kang
ReplyDelete“Seven Most Significant Court Rulings in 2009”
Korea’s criminal justice has been criticized as being especially too lenient to: 1) the rich and the powerful (especially the chaebols); and 2) sexual offenders. These cases are shown by some recent court rulings.
1) Although Lee Kun-hee was found guilty, he only received a suspended sentence despite his many offences. This kind of chaebol-friendly ruling has been the tradition in Korean criminal justice and the public is hardly surprised by this.
2) In case of sexual offences, the Korean court has rather been “protecting the offenders” by narrowing the scope of objects of rape: the court has only acknowledged a transgender male as subject to rape in 2009. Therefore, before 2009, only biological women were the lawful objects of “rape” defined by the Korean court. Also, the Korean court has been accused of “protecting the sexual offenders” by giving light sentences. These were shown in various cases, including the Cho Doo-soon in 2009. However, in this case, it rather seemed to be the legislative problem, rather than judicial one. Therefore, as the court decision was heavily criticized by the public, the government passed the revision bill on the sex crime victim protection law during the Cabinet meeting in March 2010.
I think at least in these two areas, the myth that Korea’s criminal justice system is too lenient has been true. Its chaebol-friendly characteristics are very obvious and clearly needs an improvement. However, the basis of this problem is the corrupt chaebol-government relationship and chaebol’s significant influence in Korean politics, economy and society. Unless the power of chaebol is effectively limited, there would be little improvement. The leniency in punishing sexual offenders has been true until very recently. Year 2009 and 2010 have become the turning point of dealing with sexual offenses, for including transgender males as objects of rape and tightening the law for sexual crimes. In these cases, the Korean criminal law on sexual offenses was too lenient as well as the court decisions. Therefore, better legislative measures are needed (as shown by the revision bill in March 2010) as well as tighter court decisions to improve the Korean criminal justice system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(article)
ReplyDeleteCourt rulings, with their officially binding effects, often mark watershed moments in society. Korea, over the past year, has had many changes brought about, especially in the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court.
In May, the Supreme Court allowed a comatose patient to be removed from her artificial respirator, granting her the right to a natural death. A 77-year-old comatose patient surnamed Kim fell comatose in February 2008 after severe blood loss during a medical examination in Yonsei Severance Hospital. Her family members filed separate suits holding the hospital responsible for the coma and for forcing her on unnecessary life support. Kim was released from her respirator in June but, despite solemn expectations, is still surviving on her own.
The Supreme Court, in the same month, also freed former Samsung Group chairman Lee Kun-hee from charges of an illicit power transfer to his son. The former tycoon did not cause monetary damages to Everland, a de-facto holding company of the group, by issuing convertible bonds at a low price, ruled the court, thus dismissing the appeal made by the individual counsel. Though the court judged that Lee was responsible for issuing the Samsung SDS bonds with warrants, partly returning the case to the appellate court, he was only given a suspended sentence. This relatively lenient court ruling finally ended the years-long Samsung lawsuit concerning Lee Jae-yong`s seizing control over the Samsung Group. Also, the government yesterday granted the former Samsung head a special year-end pardon, citing his role as major business figure and International Olympic Committee member.
The Supreme Court also delivered eye-catching rulings on sex crimes lawsuits in September. It also acknowledged that a transgender male may be subject to rape. "Regardless of the legal gender marked in the resident registration, the victim should be regarded as a female in a criminal sense," said the court in its ruling. Back in 1996, the court applied the sexual molestation clause on a transgender male who was kidnapped and raped, denying him the identity of a woman, as stated in the rape clause of the criminal law.
In another case, the court sentenced rapist Cho Doo-soon to a 12-year jail term, after he brutally raped and permanently disabled an 8-year-old girl last December. The ruling, largely condemned as too lenient, resulted in legal measures that elevated the punishment for those who sexually abuse children. The Constitutional Court also gave out decisions affecting the economy, politics and society in general.
In September, it ruled that the assembly law clause forbidding nighttime outdoor rallies was unconstitutional. The clause is thus to lose effect in June, unless it is appropriately revised. "The corresponding clause de-facto forbids ordinary workers or students from participating in weekday assemblies, thus depriving them of their constitutional freedom of assembly," ruled the court. A civic group member who led the anti-U.S. beef import earlier this year filed a petition during his lawsuit on illicit rally charges.
(article continued)
ReplyDeleteIn October, the Constitutional Court ruled on the much-disputed media bills passed by the National Assembly in July. It ruled that voting processes were unlawful, infringing on the voting rights of some of the lawmakers, but the passage may not be nullified as the National Assembly is to hold the right of legislation despite procedural flaws, ruled the court. As the assembly has not adopted a revote on the bills, opposition lawmakers have recently filed a second petition against speaker Kim Hyong-o.
Most recently, the court ruled the sex-by-deception law as unconstitutional. The present law dictates criminal punishment for men who lure "a chaste woman to have sex with him through false promises of marriage or other deceptions." The Ministry of Gender Equality, together with many other women`s civic groups, largely welcomed the abolition of what they called an outdated law clause.
-------------------------------------------
http://www.koreaherald.com/national/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20091230000054
Valerie Raeymaekers
ReplyDeleteKorea clamps down on sexual violence
This article deals with child sex crimes, where lenient sentences were proclaimed under a clause within the law that allows courts to reduce punishments for offenders who were under the influence of alcohol. According to the article there is an increase in sex crimes involving children. The example of Cho Du Sun, who's brutal rape left an 8 year old girl's genital organs destroyed for about 80%, is an example of keniency within the court. Cho’s prison term was reduced from a life sentence to 12 years because the court allowed for the defense that he was intoxicated when he committed the rape. Prosecutors say that this clause is very problematic since it's applied in one out of three sexual assault cases. Also for sex offenders in Korea, the use of the electronic anklet is used, but this anklet does not always monitor distance and goes off when one tries to remove it. Most offenders are also allowed to go wherever theyt want. Because of this the anklet has limitations as a means of preventing recidivism, since released sex offenders can still go visit schools or other places where there are lots of children, which makes the anklet as a punishment instead of more prison time, not immediately usefull.
I do feel that Korea tends to go lenient against drunk offenders. Maybe it is a cultural thing since Korea values alcohol a lot, but I do know that in Europe for instance the drunk defense would not work. The insanity defense would be used more quickly. However in Korea the alcohol factor is being used every one out of three cases, which makes it a problem, especially since alcohol is an external factor over which the average person has more control. Which is why I do not really understand the leniency given by the court in this case.
---------------------
It has been a month since the Cho Du-sun case, the brutal rape of an 8-year-old girl, rattled the nation. The case received instant attention after it was featured on a current affairs show on KBS on Sept. 22. One of the most untenable facts revealed about the case at the time was that the rapist was an ex-convict.
Cho Du-sun was a repeat offender who served a total of 10 years and four months in jail under charge of injury resulting from rape back in 1983 and 14 other offenses.
After he was released, he lived freely, with no restrictions or supervision. But on the morning of Dec. 11, police say Cho kidnapped a girl, referred to by the pseudonym Na-young in this article, who was on her way to school in Ansan, southwest of Seoul.
The rapist was sentenced to 12 years in prison. After that, he will have to wear a traceable electronic anklet for seven years, and his personal information will be made available to the public for five years.
The Korean public was outraged at the sentence, which many say was too light. The court was criticized for being too lenient on Cho because it used a provision in the law that allows courts to reduce punishments for offenders who were under the influence of alcohol when a crime is committed. The court reduced Cho’s sentence because he was “weaker mentally and physically.”
Cho will be cuffed with the anklet after he is released from prison but there is nothing in his sentence preventing him from going near elementary schools or the victim’s house. That’s why the Justice Ministry recently proposed additional countermeasures, including an extension of the monitoring period from the original 10 to 15 years.
When Cho’s prison term was reduced from a life sentence to a mere 12 years because the court allowed for the fact that he was intoxicated when he committed the crime, a countless number of citizens signed petitions against the decision both online and off-line.
The prosecution said it was problematic that the law is applied to one in every three sexual assault cases but is rarely applied to homicides.
“Modifying the law is important but changing the lenient social convention toward sexual assault is just as crucial,” Lee said.
ReplyDelete---------------
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2912027
-Hye sung So
ReplyDelete- Too lenient "Samsung Case Apparently Contradicts Rule of Law "
- This article deals with the sentence about Samsung case. There are myth about lenient criminal justice system. However, despite of the writer's opinion (The writer argues that the sentence is too lenient and this is contradicted to the justice.), in my opinion, this is really particular case. Samsung Group Chairman Lee Kun-hee would not sentenced to prison. He justly offer to bail.
Samsung case is so popular that many people naturally think that most sentence to criminals are lenient. However this is not true. Such a popular sentence makes myth.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Friday's ruling on a Samsung case marked the end of a lengthy legal fight against its former and incumbent executives who were indicted for breach of trust, tax evasion and other charges. The Seoul High Court handed down a three-year suspended prison term to former Samsung Group Chairman Lee Kun-hee for illegal bond trading which caused 22.7 billion won worth of damage to a system integration subsidiary of the nation's largest conglomerate. He was also fined 110 billion won ($89 million).
Lee, 67, might breathe a sigh of relief as he managed to avoid serving time with the suspended term. But the sentence is controversial enough to raise questions about the justice system and the rule of law. In the eyes of the public, the judges were too lenient with Lee who was found guilty of forcing Samsung SDS to sell bonds with warrants (BW) to his only son Jae-yong at below market prices in 1999. The court said that Lee brought damage to the firm by issuing the bonds at 7,150 won per share, much lower than the estimated market price of 14,230 won per share.
On July 16 last year, the Seoul Central District Court cleared Lee of the damage charges by inappropriately calculating the bond price at 9,740 won per share. The lower court sentenced Lee to a three-year suspended prison term with a fine of 110 billion won for evading taxes for capital gains from the bond sale designed to illegally transfer his managerial control and wealth to his son. On Oct. 10, the Seoul High Court upheld the district court's sentence. But, on May 29 this year, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the appellate court, ordering a retrial.
Then the high court recalculated the bond price and convicted Lee of the damage charges. But, the court did not increase the previous sentence despite the additional conviction. This does not make any legal sense. The court was too lenient in not putting him in prison. The judges might have taken into consideration Lee's contribution to the economy and his influence on Korean society in order to help him get the suspended term.
According to the sentencing guidelines that were introduced last month, judges are required to hand down a prison term of 4 to 7 years to any one that brought a damage of 20 billion won or so to his or her firm. Those convicted of inflicting more than 5 billion won are not in principle entitled to a suspended term. In conclusion, the high court judges ignored the guidelines in the Lee case. The judges are under criticism for saving Lee at the sacrifice of the justice system and the rule of law.
In other words, the Samsung case only contradicted the basic principle: all men are equal before the law. It has just revived cynicism that says, ``If you are rich, you are cleared of any charges. But if you are poor, you are guilty.'' How can we expect the nation to maintain democracy without guaranteeing the rule of law? How can the law enforcement authorities effectively crack down on a series of illegal inheritance of managerial control and wealth from business tycoons to their children?
------------------
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/08/202_50240.html
-
Go-Eun Kim
ReplyDeleteLeniency in sex crime of father daughter rape
The father of a teenage daughter raped her for continuous years and was only given 10 years of imprisonment. This article does not implement leniency of the courts however does incite that there needs to be tougher sentences for child rapists. The fact that he was genetically related to her means that if ever if gets out prison after ten years, he will be able to meet her again however the court seems to have been lenient in dealing with relative sex crimes. Even for rapists who rape children they have never before receives a higher sentence than 10years. Court leniency does exist in Korea and even for the public it is difficult to understand what the court is basing their sentences on. Some cases are dealt with severity whilst others are blown away. The cases seem to be in the same context however they do not get the same judgment.
Korean judges need to find a way to be consistent in their judgments. The myth of leniency exists in Korea though it has been embedded into society that now it seems like the court is capable of making their own decisions and we do not say much about it. We say that the court should be giving heavier sentences but we do not say what they should be based on because we are not sure. Leniency for the reason of being related does not justify the right of the father to only have 10years imprisonment for raping and damaging his own daughter.
---------------------------------------------
Man Gets 10 Years for Raping Daughter
The Ulsan District Court Sunday ordered a 45-year-old man to be put behind bars for 10 years and placed under monitoring for an additional five for habitually raping his teenage daughter.
His criminal record will be available for public view for five years. The court said that the father had inflicted irreparable damage on his daughter by raping her over a period of two years.
"It is imperative to keep the father away from the victim for as long as possible," the court said in its ruling.
The convict was charged with raping his teenage daughter seven times in 2007.
The court is getting tough with rapes of children after public outcry last year over what the public perceived a lenient ruling against a drunken man kidnapping and raping an elementary school girl. Recently, the Supreme Court laid out guidelines calling for tougher sentences on child rapists.
foolsdie@koreatimes.co.kr
------------------------------------------------
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/04/113_61180.html
Name: Mai Cha Vang
ReplyDeleteTitle: “Yongsan protesters get 4-5 year jail sentence”
Commentary:
As a result of protesting against a redevelopment plan in Yongsan, Seoul that would take away their housing, nine people were arrested. They were charged with killing a policeman and injuring many people in the midst of the clash with the riot policemen. The leader and one protester were sentenced to five years in prison. Five others received four-year jail sentences. The last two received suspended jail terms. The defense party’s allegation that the police had abused their power was dismissed by the presiding Judge.
There are multiple ways the myth that the criminal justice system is lenient with offenders can be used to explain this event. On one hand, people who are apathetic to the protestors’ circumstance with no regards to motives would think that people causing riots and people to die deserve to be put in prison longer. These people would be those who took the information from the media at face value and do not see anything wrong with such decisions. They could think that the criminal system is “indeed” lenient with the offenders. On the other hand, we investigate further and look at the whole case. First, the protestors protested because they did not received enough compensation when their homes were about to be destroyed. Second, the defense party asserts that during the riot the police had abused its power. If both information are taken into consideration (and are true) and the results remained the same such that the prosecuted protesters receive five and four years jail term, then I have to assert that the criminal justice system is “indeed” lenient with its own offenders—policemen.
The myth itself could also be reversed. From another angle, we could say that the criminal justice system was “too harsh” on the protestors. Although many were injured, only one policeman died (and we don’t even know exactly who killed him). To solve the problem, people were arrested and sentenced to jail for years. Like the book said, the criminal justice system alone cannot solve the problem of crime. The irony is that before the problem could even be solved before it turned into a riot. All the city needed to do was give enough compensation for destroying people’s houses. Instead, the city just went on with demolishment plan, leaving the rest of the details and protests to deal with the criminal justice system.
The myth of a lenient criminal justice system is in some ways an excuse for a society that strives to fulfill its ambitions, regardless of the harmful side effects to others’ well being.
-------------------------------------------------------
ReplyDeleteArticle: By Park Si-soo
Staff reporter
An appellate court in Seoul Monday sentenced nine protesters who had demonstrated against a redevelopment plan in Yongsan, Seoul to four to five years in prison on charges of killing a riot policeman and injuring dozens in a blaze set off during a clash in January last year.
The high court sentenced Lee Choon-yeon, the leader of the association of evictees, and another protester to five years in prison, a reduction from the six year sentence at a lower court.
The five other protesters received four-year jail sentences, down from the previous five years. The other two received suspended jail terms, the Seoul High Court ruled.
"It was legitimate for riot police to take part in the operation given that the situation was extremely risky for ordinary police officers to handle," said presiding Judge Kim In-wook, dismissing the defense team's allegation that the police abused their power. "In addition, the evidence, testimony and on-site inspection shows the fire was started by the protesters."
The nine were indicted after six people including a police officer were killed and more than 20 were injured in a blaze started during a pre-dawn clash on January 20 on the rooftop of a commercial building in Yongsan, central Seoul.
The conflict was between a group of protesters whose houses in the area were designated for demolition in a city redevelopment plan ― allegedly without sufficient compensation ― and the police who were dispatched to evict them.
The police caught 27 protesters at the scene and the nine were prosecuted after it was confirmed by the prosecution that they had led the illegal occupation.
Following the ruling, distraught family members expressed their despondency from the guilty verdict in a statement, saying "It is a day of extreme disappointment."
They plan to appeal to the Supreme Court.
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/06/113_66821.html
Agnes Seul-Gi Kang
ReplyDelete“Killer” video games
A couple was arrested for not taking care of their premature baby, due to the fact that they were addicted to raising a virtual baby online. However the more controversial issue in this article is the fact that the original 5 year imprisonment of the husband was reduced to only 2 years, and the wife’s imprisonment was suspended due to the coming of her second baby in the next 3 months.
I think the myth of leniency in the court poses many controversies. As stated in the course book, responses to crimes depend a lot on cultural influences; in other words, different countries have different sentences for the same crime.
In this article, there is no reason as to why the judge reduced the husband’s sentence to only 2 years, other than the fact that the couple was showing remorse. The response of the judge to a serial killer showing remorse would have most probably been indifferent. Therefore, I think the reason why courts are thought to be lenient is because of the emotional outbreaks of the offenders that affect the judge’s decision on the length of incarceration. Although a judge is a professional, the inevitable nature of humans to empathize with emotions may interfere.
Also, I feel the suspension of incarceration of the aroused several controversies.
Firstly, the wife was obviously very irresponsible and distracted by computer games so as to leave one’s baby to die of starvation; however the judge chooses to believe her promises of taking good care of her second child and gives her a chance, suspending all sentences. This relates back to the unavoidable empathetic nature of all humans.
Secondly, although the judge labeled this crime as “inhumane and immoral” and one that “can’t be forgiven for any reason”; he contradicted himself and lightened and suspended the punishments. This shows the unprofessional nature of judges and their erroneous verdicts – which could be interpreted as being lenient.
Overall, I feel this myth may be applicable to only several countries, such as Korea where crime is relatively uncommon in comparison to other parts of the world, such as the US, where crime is much more common.
-------------------------------------
“According to investigators, the couple met in 2008 on the Internet and the baby was born prematurely last June. Due to her low birth weight she was placed in an incubator for 40 days after her birth. Once she came home, investigators alleged that she was fed only once a day as her parents spent up to 12 hours a day playing the Internet game Pirus, which involved the raising of a virtual child. The real baby died last September.”
--------
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2921117