In this blog post, we will examine whether the death penalty is the best way to achieve justice in South Korea from various perspectives.
Introduction
South Korea is currently a country that does not actually carry out the death penalty. The last time the death penalty was carried out was on December 30, 1997, when 23 prisoners lost their lives. Since then, there has not been a single execution. As of 2023, South Korea is classified as a country that has effectively abolished the death penalty. Although the death penalty still exists, countries that have not carried out executions for more than 10 years or have made an international commitment not to carry out executions are considered to have effectively abolished the death penalty. Among them are about 30 countries, including Russia.
On the other hand, about 60 countries, including the United States, China, and Japan, continue to carry out the death penalty, while 12 countries, including Brazil and Chile, have completely abolished it. As you can see, opinions on the death penalty vary from country to country. However, whenever a brutal crime such as a serial murder occurs, the debate over the death penalty resurfaces.
Every time this happens, a debate arises over whether the death penalty should be abolished. I believe that the death penalty should be abolished regardless of the crime. In South Korea, most death sentences are handed down for murder, so this article will focus mainly on murder.
Reasons for the death penalty
First, why is the death penalty carried out? The death penalty is the most severe punishment imposed on serious criminals who have caused great harm to society. The purpose is to achieve justice by imposing a punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime, and to provide some comfort to the victims and their families. In addition, the death penalty is intended to alert society and send a strong warning message to potential criminals. One of the arguments in favor of the death penalty is that it serves as an example to prevent others from committing the same crime. This is expected to have a deterrent effect on crime.
In particular, brutal crimes such as serial killings, sexual assault, and terrorism have a profound impact on society and cause fear and anxiety among many people. By imposing the death penalty for such crimes, society makes it clear that such crimes will not be tolerated again and sends a strong message that criminals cannot escape justice. This is also considered an important means of redressing the grievances of victims and maintaining social justice. However, I believe that these reasons are actually reasons why the death penalty should be abolished.
Opposition to the death penalty
First, executing someone does not prevent the crime from happening again. In other words, the crime prevention effect of the death penalty is very limited, and the belief that the death penalty can deter crime lacks practical basis. Although capital punishment is the most powerful means of punishing criminals, considering the psychology of those who commit crimes, its effect on crime prevention is minimal. In particular, criminals with extreme tendencies, such as psychopaths and the mentally ill, or those who commit crimes on a whim, are not aware of the existence of capital punishment or do not fear it. They are often unable to reasonably judge the legal consequences of their actions, so it is difficult to expect the death penalty to be effective in preventing crime. In fact, the UN has investigated the link between the death penalty and crime on two occasions, but has not concluded that the death penalty is effective in deterring crime. Furthermore, Canada abolished the death penalty for murder in 1976, and murder crimes have gradually decreased. In 1998, the death penalty was completely abolished for all crimes. This is an important example that supports the argument that the death penalty does not directly contribute to crime prevention.
Second, although the death penalty is a legally permitted punishment, it is problematic in that it is essentially murder by the state. It cannot be denied that the act of the state forcibly taking the life of a criminal in the name of the law is ultimately a form of murder. Although the process of execution and murder committed by a criminal may differ, the pain and fear leading to death are the same. It is fundamentally contradictory to condemn a criminal for taking the life of another person while the state ends the life of the criminal in the same way. Despite the state’s responsibility to protect the lives of its citizens, forcibly taking a person’s life through the death penalty is an act that fails to fulfill that responsibility. The state’s claim to legitimacy does not change the inhumane and violent nature of the death penalty. Furthermore, the state has a duty to protect the right to life, and even if a criminal has committed a serious crime, forcibly taking their life is an act that violates human dignity and the right to life.
Third, the death penalty carries the risk of miscarriage of justice. Death sentences depend on human judgment, which is imperfect, and not all court decisions are correct, so the possibility of miscarriage of justice always exists. If an innocent person is sentenced to death and executed due to a miscarriage of justice, it is tantamount to the state killing an innocent person. In such a situation, the death penalty loses all legitimacy and can no longer be considered a legal punishment, but simply an act of murder. With a punishment such as life imprisonment, the defendant has the opportunity to have a wrongful conviction overturned through retrial while they are still alive. However, once the death penalty has been carried out, even if the verdict is overturned through retrial, the person who has lost their life cannot be brought back, making the death penalty an irreversible punishment. This permanently deprives the defendant of the opportunity to correct a miscarriage of justice, and as a result, the state may cause greater tragedy through the harsh punishment of taking a life.
Therefore, the death penalty not only has a minimal effect on crime prevention, but also violates the state’s obligation to protect the right to life and can cause irreversible damage due to the possibility of miscarriage of justice. For these reasons, I believe that the death penalty should be abolished.
Arguments in favor of the death penalty
Those who support the death penalty argue that a strict distinction must be made between capital punishment carried out by the state and murder committed by individuals. They argue that the state’s use of capital punishment to punish criminals in order to achieve justice is fundamentally different from murder committed out of personal desire or emotion.
Individual murder is committed out of emotional motives such as anger, jealousy, and revenge, but the death penalty is carried out by the state in the course of administering justice in accordance with the law. This holds criminals accountable for their crimes under the law and, at the same time, serves to prevent the crime from happening again. In this respect, the death penalty is clearly different from individual murder.
Of course, there may be differences in the purpose of capital punishment and murder. However, capital punishment is essentially a planned and cold-blooded act carried out by the state, so those in favor of it must also consider this to some extent. The extreme anxiety and fear felt by prisoners awaiting execution is beyond imagination. They fall into despair, knowing that they will die but have no way to escape it. The officials responsible for carrying out the execution also inevitably suffer psychological distress. The fact that they must end another person’s life with their own hands is a huge psychological burden, and the stress they feel is bound to be immense. In this respect, it can be argued that the death penalty is not so different from murder. Ultimately, punishment by the state must aim to achieve justice and reform criminals or prevent them from reoffending, but the death penalty is a form of punishment that causes excessive psychological suffering to too many people in order to achieve these goals.
Proponents of the death penalty also cite cost as an important reason. They argue that the cost of keeping a convicted criminal in prison for life is enormous, and that the death penalty must be carried out in order to save social resources. If a convicted criminal is sentenced to life imprisonment and lives in prison, the government must support their livelihood until the end of their life. The costs of food and shelter in prison, the operating costs of correctional facilities, and all costs related to medical services in prisons are ultimately covered by taxes. On the other hand, they argue that the death penalty can reduce these costs, especially the costs of keeping serious criminals in prison for long periods of time.
However, considering the death penalty solely from an economic perspective can be ethically problematic. The logic of killing people for money is not consistent with the original purpose of the death penalty. Punishment of criminals should not be solely for economic gain, but should be for the sake of justice and social stability. Arguments in favor of the death penalty from an economic perspective are ultimately no different from reducing human life to a monetary value, disregarding the dignity of life. Human life is a precious value that cannot be judged by economic logic, and the use of the death penalty for economic reasons cannot avoid criticism that it conflicts with social conscience.
Proponents of the death penalty also point to the fear of serious criminals remaining in society. They argue that the death penalty is the only way to prevent criminals from reoffending and believe that certain criminals are incapable of rehabilitation. In such cases, they believe that the death penalty is necessary as a means of permanently removing criminals from society and preventing them from returning. This provides comfort to the families of victims and prevents the recurrence of crime, thereby providing a sense of security to society as a whole.
Conclusion
The debate over the death penalty remains a hot social issue. Whether South Korea resumes executions or abolishes the death penalty altogether, this debate is likely to continue indefinitely. Currently, courts still hand down death sentences for serious crimes, but no executions have been carried out for a long time. For this reason, South Korea is classified as a country that has abolished the death penalty in practice. Nevertheless, the debate surrounding the death penalty remains heated, and every time a particularly brutal crime occurs, there are calls to reinstate the death penalty. However, I believe that what the state should truly do is not simply repay murderers in kind, but rather take preventive measures to ensure that such tragic crimes never happen again to the families of victims and the general public.
