This article discusses the necessity and effectiveness of the death penalty, covering crime prevention, social safety, the possibility of misjudgment, human dignity, and economic aspects. It argues that South Korea should reintroduce the death penalty to deter crime and contribute to social stability.
It is a fact that most people feel that the current laws in South Korea are very weak. Criminals are not punished severely and are given a slap on the wrist, which is evident in the high recidivism rate. This has led to some people saying that South Korea is a good place for criminals to live, and the public’s sense of insecurity is growing in the midst of a tense world. Against this backdrop, many people believe that we need to root out the root of crime by executing the most heinous criminals.
The death penalty is the most severe sanction for criminal offenses, and is often referred to as a “life sentence” because it deprives a person of life. In recent years, the death penalty has been heatedly debated due to the frequent cases of heinous sexual crimes among other crimes. However, no executions have been carried out in South Korea since December 30, 1997, which is why Amnesty International classifies South Korea as a de facto abolitionist country. Nevertheless, a survey on the “revival of the death penalty” conducted from January 14, 2014 to January 21, 2015 among 5,030 men and women aged 10-99 nationwide found that 72% were in favor of retaining the death penalty and 69% were in favor of execution.
I believe that the death penalty should be fully implemented in Korea to eliminate social evils and promote social stability. In the following, I will explain my position in favor of the death penalty for four reasons.
First, the death penalty is very important in terms of ‘crime prevention’. Because the death penalty is the most severe punishment available, it has a powerful deterrent effect that makes people think twice before committing a crime. According to the survey above, about 73% of respondents believe that the death penalty can curb the incidence of crime. If it were actually enforced, it would create fear of crime, which would deter and prevent crime in the first place. Opponents argue that there is no data to prove that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on crime, and that the claim that people don’t commit crimes because they are afraid of the death penalty is irrelevant. They point to the United States and Canada as examples, explaining that homicides in the United States increased after the death penalty was reinstated, and that in Canada, which abolished the death penalty, the murder rate per 100,000 people dropped by 44%. However, this is based on only a few cases.
According to data submitted by South Korea’s Ministry of Justice to the National Assembly’s Legal Affairs and Judiciary Committee, in the 10 years since 1998, the last year of executions in South Korea, homicides increased by an average of 193 per year, a 32% increase, compared to the period before the moratorium (pre-1997). With 57 inmates currently on death row, homicides have increased by 30%. Furthermore, according to the U.S. National Police Offender Record Report, 63% of felons who turned themselves in did so out of fear of the death penalty. These examples clearly demonstrate the positive impact of the death penalty as a deterrent to crime, with crime rates decreasing and the likelihood of recidivism decreasing when the death penalty is present.
Second, by executing the worst offenders, we reduce the harm to innocent citizens. By nipping crime in the bud, we can make our society safer. However, opponents point to the possibility of a mistrial. They argue that the death penalty due to a mistrial cannot be compensated for by anyone, and that innocent citizens could be victimized. However, this is highly unlikely. Currently, the process of dealing with crimes involves a complex three-step process, with judges gathering evidence and deciding on a sentence of death. Therefore, the likelihood of a mistrial is very small, and even if it is, it is a problem that can exist not only with the death penalty, but also with life imprisonment or fines. If we cannot punish criminals for fear of misjudgment, we will not be able to punish any crime properly.
If criminals like Yoo Young-cheol and Kang Ho-soon had received severe sentences commensurate with their crimes before they had 11 and 7 prior convictions, respectively, more harm would have been prevented than the victims of misjudgment. Opponents also worry that the death penalty could lead to a resurgence of dictatorships. However, unlike the dictatorships of the past, South Korea’s judiciary is not beholden to government power and follows democratic principles globally, so a resurgence of dictatorships is highly unlikely. Even in the United States, where the death penalty remains in place, we have not seen a dictatorship take over or a coup d’état.
Third, we believe that it is unfair to protect the lives and human rights of criminals on an equal footing with the innocent. Opponents of the death penalty cite human dignity as the most important reason for opposing the death penalty, but we believe that in order to protect human dignity, people must first do what they are supposed to do as human beings, and those who fail to do so must be punished accordingly. Opponents argue that executing criminals for their immoral behavior is no different than murder, but this is incorrect. Murders committed by murderers are not done in the name of justice, and executions carried out in the name of the state are done as a just punishment for their crimes.
Finally, I believe that life imprisonment or non-execution of the death penalty, which is maintained through the taxes of the people, is a waste of taxes. In South Korea, we have sentenced people to death but not executed them since 1998, and as a result, death row inmates are treated the same as other inmates as a backlog. The welfare cost is 1.6 million won per year for each inmate on death row, and the cost is increasing as the number of inmates on death row increases. This means that reprehensible death row inmates are being kept comfortable in prisons at the expense of taxpayers’ money. Therefore, the death penalty should be implemented to prevent taxpayers’ money from being wasted.
Opponents argue that it doesn’t make sense to take a person’s life for economic reasons. However, the real reason for the death penalty is that it is a “reasonable punishment for a grave crime,” and proponents only cite economic reasons as a secondary reason. They also argue that the cost of maintaining the death penalty is higher than life imprisonment, citing the United States as an example, and there are reports that the cost of executions in South Korea is less than the cost of non-executions. We believe that the cost issue can also be addressed by improving procedures to reduce the cost of litigation.
Singapore is a very strict country when it comes to punishing criminals. The law prescribes the death penalty for committing murder, using illegal weapons, and possessing and dealing in drugs above a certain amount. As a result, Singapore has a very low crime rate, which is often attributed to the strict enforcement of the death penalty. I argue that if Korea strictly enforced the death penalty like Singapore, it would lower the crime rate and eliminate social evils.
