South Korea is a de facto abolitionist country, meaning that the death penalty exists but is not executed. However, it is necessary to maintain the death penalty for its crime deterrent effect and social safety, and the Constitutional Court has recognized it as constitutional. The argument is that the death penalty plays an important role as the country’s last deterrent to crime.
South Korea is a de facto abolitionist country, meaning it has the death penalty but does not carry it out. This is significant in the international community, as the death penalty is increasingly being abolished around the world. As the morality and effectiveness of the death penalty continues to be debated, there is a growing consensus that it should be abolished in South Korea. In fact, there are many countries around the world that have completely abolished the death penalty, and many countries have either legally abolished the death penalty or have abolished it except in exceptional circumstances such as wartime. In addition, there are many countries that have the death penalty but do not carry out executions, effectively abolishing the death penalty. Nevertheless, I don’t think we should abolish the death penalty, even if we don’t actually carry out executions.
The death penalty in South Korea is based on laws mentioned in the Constitution and the Criminal Code. In 2008, a constitutional challenge to the death penalty was filed in the Constitutional Court. The court ruled that the death penalty was constitutional, and one of the judges’ reasons for the ruling was this. “There may be exceptional circumstances in which it is inevitable to deprive a person of his life, which is, paradoxically, its destroyer, in order to clarify the dignity of the human person and the inherent value of human life. Therefore, the death penalty cannot be said to violate Article 10 of the Constitution as long as it is understood narrowly as a punishment for crimes against humanity. Furthermore, the inclusion of the death penalty in the range of statutory penalties for crimes against humanity cannot be considered a communalization of the right to life. Therefore, the death penalty cannot be considered a violation of the essential content of freedoms and rights.” The judgment makes it clear that the death penalty still plays an important role in the country’s penal system. In order to ensure human dignity and its value, there may be unavoidable situations in which it is necessary to take the life of a criminal who has harmed others. This is tantamount to the state deciding that it does not recognize the dignity of life for those who take the life of others. In this regard, I believe it is necessary to maintain the death penalty in order to promote the dignity of life.
The deterrent aspect of the death penalty is the reason why there are still countries that maintain the death penalty even if they don’t use it. In fact, the United States and Japan have abolished the death penalty, but after abolishing the death penalty, crime rates increased rapidly, leading to the reintroduction of the death penalty. This shows that the deterrent effect of the death penalty cannot be ignored. In the case of South Korea, the number of murders has increased by an average of 193 per year since 1998, when the death penalty was abolished. It’s not just the number of murders, but also the quality of the crimes. A growing proportion of murders are premeditated and premeditated, and the crime rate has continued to rise. This means that the crime rate is rising even when the death penalty exists but is not enforced, and if the death penalty is abolished, this situation may be exacerbated. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain the death penalty in order to maintain the security of Korean society.
There are also arguments that the death penalty does not directly affect crime rates. In fact, Canada abolished the death penalty in the 1970s, but crime rates have continued to decline since then. Globally, there is also no consistent relationship between the presence of the death penalty and crime rates. In the United States, states vary in whether or not they have the death penalty and whether or not they carry it out, but there is no consistent trend in crime rates. However, this is not an overall trend, and there may be consistent trends within individual regions based on the presence of the death penalty. For example, Japan saw a significant increase in crime when they abolished the death penalty, and then saw a decrease when they reintroduced it. Similarly, in South Korea, the crime rate has continued to rise since the death penalty was abolished, with premeditated heinous crimes accounting for an increasing proportion of the crime rate. This suggests that it would be reasonable for South Korea to maintain the death penalty to fulfill its purpose of crime prevention.
Another argument against the death penalty is the possibility of executing an innocent person due to a mistake. The possibility of a mistrial, which is the biggest loophole of the death penalty, was also mentioned in the constitutional petition process. However, there is a logical leap to abolishing the death penalty for this reason. First of all, the death penalty is the highest level of punishment, which means that it is subject to a lot of scrutiny, and it is only given after a clear context of the crime. The chances of an innocent person being sentenced to death in this process are extremely low. It is more likely to be a lower level of punishment than the death penalty that is the issue. In Korea, efforts are being made to reduce the likelihood of wrongful convictions as much as possible through a review system, strengthening the capacity of judges to reduce wrongful convictions, and improving technology to ensure the accuracy of the investigation process. Therefore, the argument that the death penalty should be abolished because of the possibility of wrongful convictions is not valid. While the irreversible nature of the death penalty certainly warrants caution, South Korea is not a de facto abolitionist country and does not carry out executions, so the retention of the death penalty is more symbolic. This makes the argument for abolishing the death penalty unrealistic.
It’s true that the death penalty is becoming less common around the world. However, it’s one thing to maintain the death penalty, but it’s quite another to actually carry out executions. In South Korea, the death penalty has been effective in deterring crime, as evidenced by changes in the crime rate. Also, the possibility of a mistrial is unlikely to cause a major problem given that South Korea is a de facto abolitionist country. Moreover, given that the Constitutional Court has recognized the constitutionality of the death penalty, it is necessary to maintain the death penalty to promote the stability of Korean society. The presence of the death penalty in the country’s penal system plays an important role as a last resort to deter crime and ensure social safety. For these reasons, the death penalty should not be abolished, and the current system should be maintained.
