The death penalty in South Korea has been controversial throughout the country’s long history, with many cases of abuse during the Japanese occupation and military dictatorship. The recent increase in heinous crimes has led to calls for its reinstatement, but the death penalty is considered an inhumane punishment that violates a person’s right to life and deprives them of the opportunity for rehabilitation, and its deterrent effect is minimal. The possibility of error in judgment is also a serious problem, which reveals the limitations of an impartial justice system. For these reasons, the argument that the death penalty should be abolished is becoming increasingly convincing.
The death penalty has a long history in South Korea. It’s so venerable that it was practiced before Korea even existed as a country. However, its problems came to the forefront of society when the death penalty was used as a tool to control Korea during the Japanese occupation. The Japanese ruthlessly executed independence fighters, demonstrating how powerless and innocent citizens could be wrongfully victimized by the state’s law enforcement. This led to the 3. 1 Hooray Movement, including Yoo Yoo-soon, who participated in the movement; Lee In-young, the commander of the 13th Changguk Army, who was arrested for practicing the Korean language; Kang Woo-kyu, who threw a bomb at Governor Saito; Hwang Hoo, a military officer; and Lee Kang-yeon, a hussar captain. In response, the provisional government of the Republic of Korea abolished the death penalty in Article 9 of the Constitution to prevent its abuse.
After the Japanese occupation, South Korea continued to enact new laws, including the National Security Act of 1960, the Anti-Communist Act and the Act on Punishment for Violent Acts, etc. of 1961, and the Special Measures for the Suppression of Health Crimes Act, which further expanded the scope of the death penalty. In particular, the military used these laws to suppress those who opposed them, executing pro-democracy activists, students and citizens who participated in protests without due process of law. However, with the fall of the military in the 1990s and the establishment of democracy, no executions have been carried out in South Korea since 1998.
Recently, there have been calls for the reinstatement of the death penalty in South Korea due to various heinous crimes. It is as if people believe that the death penalty is a tool of justice to bring vengeance to heinous criminals. However, it is highly unlikely that the death penalty will ever be practiced in South Korea again due to a number of issues that would arise if it were to be reinstated. I also believe that the death penalty should be abolished, and here are my reasons why.
First, Article 10 of the South Korean Constitution states that “All citizens have dignity and value as human beings and have the right to pursue happiness. The state affirms the inviolable and fundamental human rights of individuals and assumes the obligation to guarantee them.” The constitutions of many countries make similar statements: human life is dignified and sacred and has the right not to be taken away from others. The death penalty violates this fundamental right, the right to life, and is a major obstacle to maintaining human dignity. Recent public opinion argues that murderers should be deprived of their right to life through principles such as “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” because they have violated the right to life of others, but murderers are also human beings, and disregarding their dignity undermines human dignity as a whole. Furthermore, frequent executions risk spreading a culture of disregard for life.
Second, the death penalty should be abolished because it is unsuitable for the purpose of edification through punishment, which is what criminal law is supposed to be about. Executing criminals makes it impossible to reform them, which is contrary to the spirit of criminal law. It is a punishment that is more retributive than educational. Furthermore, there is no need to take a life, as criminals can be permanently isolated from society by imprisoning them for life.
Third, from a preventative perspective, the deterrent effect of the death penalty is minimal, as most criminals who would be executed are either not of sound mind or choose to commit suicide after committing their crimes. This means that criminals who commit capital offenses are too frightened and terrified at the time of the crime to realize that their actions will result in a punishment of death. This is especially true for those who are not mentally sane or those who commit their crimes accidentally. Even those who commit premeditated murder often do so without serious consideration of the penalty of death. Furthermore, given the current rise in heinous crimes, it is not uncommon for people to commit the same offense despite knowing from the media what punishment others who have committed similar crimes have received. This suggests that the deterrent effect of punishment is low, so the existence of the death penalty, the highest penalty in the criminal code, is unlikely to have a significant deterrent effect.
Fourth, social perceptions of the death penalty are changing. With the establishment of true democracy since the 1990s, the problems of the death penalty, which was once considered similar to other punishments, are being recognized. While public opinion in South Korea still favors retention of the death penalty, support for abolition is steadily growing. Poll results can also be unreliable, as they fluctuate widely depending on whether a heinous crime has occurred. Bills such as the ‘Special Bill on the Abolition of the Death Penalty’ are also being proposed in the National Assembly. This bill argues that the death penalty has no deterrent effect, that it is unjust for a human being to decide on the life of another human being, and that countries around the world should join the trend of abolishing the death penalty.
The Stockholm Declaration, issued in 1977, outlines an unconditional opposition to the death penalty. One of the conditions for joining the European Union (EU) is that countries must abolish the death penalty. Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, also supported the resolution, calling it “a step towards the eventual abolition of the death penalty.”
Finally, the death penalty should be abolished because of the fallibility of judgment. Unlike other punishments, the death penalty cannot be reversed once it is carried out. If a person is executed due to an erroneous verdict and later found innocent, the state has murdered a person through its laws, which is a serious problem. To address this issue, the three-judge system attempts to reduce the likelihood of error in judgment, but the possibility of a mistrial remains, as not all the truth may be revealed during the trial process. Also, while there have been recent calls to reinstate the death penalty for various heinous crimes, public outcry can act as psychological pressure on judges, making it difficult for them to deliver a fair verdict. In a judicial system where human emotions are involved, it is difficult to ensure a perfectly logical and impartial judgment.
An example of this is the case of Alfred Dreyfus. Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish Frenchman from Alsace, was arrested for treason in 1894 for providing military secrets to Germany. Although a handwriting examination showed that his handwriting was different from the classified documents, the investigating headquarters believed it to be the same and sentenced him to life imprisonment. However, in 1898, a reinvestigation revealed his innocence, but the military at the time refused to acknowledge the mistake. This case exposed the prejudice against Jews and the problem of misjudgment, and if the death penalty had been carried out, there would have been no accountability for judicial murder.
In addition to the above reasons, the death penalty is an inhumane and outdated institution that is inconsistent with human dignity and must be abolished.
