South Korea has effectively abolished capital punishment since 1997, but the death penalty continues to be debated whenever brutal crimes such as serial killings occur. I argue that the death penalty should be abolished because of its minimal crime deterrent effect, the potential for mistrial, and the state’s obligation to protect the right to life.

Introduction

South Korea is a country that does not currently practice the death penalty. The last execution took place on December 30, 1997, when 23 prisoners were put to death. There has not been a single execution since then. As of 2023, South Korea is classified as a de facto abolitionist country. While the death penalty still exists, countries that have not executed a person for more than 10 years, or have made an international commitment not to execute, are considered de facto abolitionist. There are about 30 of these countries, including Russia. On the other hand, more than 60 countries continue to execute people, including the United States, China, and Japan, and 12 countries, including Brazil and Chile, have completely abolished the death penalty. As you can see, opinions on the death penalty are mixed.
However, the debate about the death penalty seems to resurface every time a brutal crime occurs, such as a serial killer. There are arguments for and against abolishing the death penalty, and I think it should be abolished no matter what the crime. In South Korea, most death sentences are for murder, so this article will focus on murder.

Why is the death penalty necessary?

First of all, why is the death penalty implemented? The death penalty is the most severe punishment for serious criminals who have caused great harm to society. It’s meant to bring justice to those who have committed serious crimes with a punishment that is commensurate with the severity of the crime, and it’s also meant to provide some comfort to the victims and their families. Executions are also meant to serve as a warning to society and send a strong message to potential criminals. One of the arguments for the death penalty is that it sets an example that will deter others from committing the same crime. The hope is that it will act as a deterrent.
In particular, heinous crimes such as serial killings, sexual assault, and terrorism have a profound social impact and cause fear and anxiety in many people. By imposing the death penalty for these crimes, society makes it clear that such crimes will not be tolerated again and sends a strong message that criminals will not escape justice. This is often seen as an important means of addressing victims’ feelings of injustice and maintaining social justice. However, I believe that these reasons are actually reasons to abolish the death penalty.

Arguments against the death penalty

First, execution does not guarantee that the crime will not happen again. In other words, the deterrent effect of the death penalty is very limited, and the belief that it can deter crime lacks substantial evidence. While the death penalty is the most powerful means of punishing criminals, its impact on crime deterrence is minimal when considering the psychology of those who commit crimes. In particular, extreme criminals, such as psychopaths and the mentally ill, or those who commit crimes accidentally and out of temporary impulse, do not recognize the existence of the death penalty or fear it. They are often unable to rationally assess the legal consequences of their actions, making the death penalty an ineffective deterrent to crime. In fact, the United Nations has twice examined the link between the death penalty and crime, and has not concluded that it is effective in deterring crime. Furthermore, Canada abolished the death penalty for murder in 1976, but homicides gradually decreased, and in 1998, Canada abolished the death penalty altogether for all crimes. This is an important example that supports the argument that the death penalty does not directly contribute to crime prevention.
Second, while the death penalty is a legally authorized punishment, it is problematic in that it is essentially murder by the state. When the state forcibly takes the life of a criminal in the name of the law, it is undeniably a form of murder. While the process of execution and criminal homicide may be different, the pain and horror of death are the same. It is fundamentally contradictory for the state to condemn criminals for taking the lives of others, yet end their lives in the same way. The state is responsible for protecting the lives of its citizens, and forcibly taking a person’s life through the death penalty is a failure to fulfill that responsibility. The inhumane and violent nature of the death penalty does not change because the state claims justification. Furthermore, the state has a duty to protect the right to life, and even if an offender has committed a serious crime, it is a violation of human dignity and the right to life for the state to forcibly take that life.
Third, the death penalty carries the risk of misjudgment. Because the death penalty relies on human judgment, it is not perfect, and there is always the possibility of a mistrial because not every decision made in a court of law can be correct. If an innocent person is sentenced to death and executed because of a mistake, the state has murdered an innocent person. In this case, the death penalty is completely unjustified, and it is no longer a legal punishment, but a simple act of murder. With a punishment such as life imprisonment, the accused can be retried while he or she is still alive and given the opportunity to correct the wrong decision. However, the death penalty is an irreversible punishment that cannot be reversed, even if the verdict is overturned through a retrial. It permanently removes the opportunity to correct a mistake in the law, and as a result, the state can cause even greater tragedy through the harsh punishment of taking a life.
As such, the death penalty has little deterrent effect, violates the state’s obligation to protect the right to life, and can cause irreparable harm due to the potential for error. For these reasons, the death penalty should be abolished.

The pro-death penalty position

Those in favor of the death penalty argue that there should be a strict distinction between state executions and homicides committed by individuals. Their argument is that the state’s execution of a criminal in the name of justice is fundamentally different from an individual’s killing out of private desire or emotion. While individual murders are motivated by emotions such as anger, jealousy, and revenge, executions are carried out by the state in the course of administering just punishment under the law. It aims to make the offender pay for the crime by holding him or her accountable to society’s legal standards, while also preventing the crime from happening again. In this respect, it is argued that the death penalty is clearly differentiated from personal homicide.
Of course, capital punishment and murder may differ in their goals. However, proponents of the death penalty should also consider the fact that it is essentially a premeditated, cold-blooded act carried out by the state. The extreme anxiety and fear that death row inmates feel when facing execution is unimaginable. They know when they’re going to die, and there’s no way to avoid it. The bureaucrats in charge of carrying out the execution are also bound to suffer psychologically. The fact that they have to end another human being’s life with their own hands is a great psychological burden, and the stress they feel is very high. In this respect, it can be argued that the death penalty is not much different in its essence from personal murder. After all, the state’s punishment should be aimed at achieving justice, reforming the offender or preventing them from reoffending, and the death penalty is a form of punishment that causes too much psychological pain to too many people to achieve these goals.
Proponents of the death penalty also cite cost as an important reason. The cost of keeping a sentenced criminal in prison for the rest of his or her life is enormous, so they argue that it should be carried out in order to conserve societal resources. If a criminal sentenced to death is sentenced to life in prison, the government must support them until the end of their lives. The cost of eating and sleeping in prison, the cost of running the correctional facility, and all the costs associated with in-prison medical care all end up being covered by taxes. Executions, on the other hand, can reduce these costs, especially for felons who spend long periods of time in prison.
However, considering the death penalty solely from an economic perspective can be ethically problematic. The logic of killing people for money goes against the original intent of the death penalty. Punishing criminals shouldn’t be done simply for economic gain, but for the sake of justice and maintaining social stability. Any argument in favor of the death penalty from an economic point of view is nothing more than reducing a human life to a monetary value while ignoring the dignity of life. Human life is a precious value that cannot be reduced to economic logic, and the use of the death penalty for economic reasons is inevitably criticized as a violation of social conscience.
Proponents of the death penalty also point to the fear of allowing criminals who have committed serious crimes to remain in society. They argue that the death penalty is the only way to prevent criminals from reoffending in the first place, and they believe that certain criminals are beyond rehabilitation. In these cases, they see the death penalty as a means of permanently removing them from society and blocking the possibility of their return. This would also provide comfort to the victim’s family and provide a sense of security to society as a whole by preventing the crime from recurring.

Conclusion

The debate for and against the death penalty is still a hot topic in society. Whether South Korea reinstates the death penalty or abolishes it altogether, the debate is likely to continue for years to come. While courts still impose death sentences for capital offenses, actual executions have not been carried out for a long time. Because of this, South Korea is categorized as a de facto abolitionist country. Nevertheless, the debate surrounding the death penalty hasn’t lost any of its heat, and every time a particularly heinous crime is committed, there are often calls to bring it back.
However, I believe that what the state should really be doing is not simply giving the killer the same punishment, but rather providing the victims’ families and the public with preventative measures to ensure that these tragic crimes never happen again. Brutal crimes certainly traumatize society and leave irreparable scars on the victims and their families. Nevertheless, the death penalty is not a fundamental solution to these problems. The death penalty is a punishment that, once carried out, can never be reversed. If the verdict is wrong, the consequences are irreversible, and the only thing that remains is the tragedy of a life unjustly taken.
Moreover, the death penalty deprives the offender of the opportunity to reflect and reform. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to realize their mistakes and start anew. The death penalty removes any chance for a criminal to reflect on their sins, atone for them, and start living right again. It is a punishment that is highly inhumane because it does not give the offender a chance to reflect on and atone for their crimes, and it undermines human dignity. Criminals should have some human rights and should be given the possibility to be reformed and become a part of society again.
Lastly, the death penalty not only results in another form of murder, but it has been proven in many cases that, despite its cruelty, it doesn’t actually deter crime. Execution does not guarantee that the same type of crime will not be committed again. On the contrary, it can further highlight social contradictions and problems as the death penalty is justified as legalized murder. As a result, there is no reason for the death penalty to be maintained any longer, given its minimal effectiveness in preventing crime.
In the end, I believe that the death penalty should be abolished because it violates the human right to life and is not effective in preventing crime. Instead of using the death penalty to retaliate for heinous crimes, the state should be looking for more systematic and humane ways to prevent crime and heal the pain of victims’ families. There are other ways to achieve justice and prevent crimes from happening again.