This blog post takes a closer look at whether the death penalty is an effective system for preventing crime or a system that violates human dignity.
The death penalty has a long history in Korea that is difficult to trace its origins. It is a system with a long history that was implemented even before the country was formed. However, the problems of the death penalty began to be highlighted socially as it was used as a tool to dominate Korea during the Japanese colonial period. At the time, Japan executed independence activists mercilessly, revealing that powerless and innocent citizens could be unfairly harmed by the enforcement of the law. As a result, many patriotic martyrs were sacrificed, including Yu Gwan-sun, who participated in the March 1st Movement, Lee In-young, the commander of the 13th Division of the Korean Independence Army who was arrested for his activities during the late Joseon Dynasty, Kang Woo-gyu, who threw a bomb at Governor-General Saito, and military leaders Heo Yu and Lee Kang-nyeon. In response, the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea specified the abolition of the death penalty in Article 9 of the Constitution to prevent the abuse of the death penalty.
Even after the Japanese colonial period, new laws such as the National Security Act of 1960, the Anti-Communist Act and the Act on Punishment of Violent Acts and Others of 1961, and the Special Measures Act on Health Crime Control were enacted, further expanding the scope of the death penalty. In particular, the military used these laws to suppress opposition forces and sentenced pro-democracy activists, students and citizens who participated in demonstrations to death without due process. However, since the military fell and democracy took root in the 1990s, no executions have been carried out in South Korea since 1998.
In recent years, there has been a growing public demand for the reinstatement of the death penalty in South Korea due to the occurrence of various heinous crimes. People seem to think that the death penalty is a tool of justice that serves to avenge the heinous crimes of criminals. However, due to the various problems that would arise if the death penalty were reinstated, it is highly unlikely that the death penalty will be reinstated in South Korea. I, too, believe that the death penalty should be abolished, and here is why.
First, Article 10 of the Korean Constitution states, “All citizens have dignity and value as human beings and the right to pursue happiness. The state has the duty to confirm and guarantee the inviolable basic human rights of individuals.” Similar provisions are found in the constitutions of many other countries. In other words, it is clear that human life is dignified and precious, and that we have the right not to be deprived of it by others. The death penalty is a system that violates the right to life, a basic human right, and it is a major obstacle to maintaining human dignity. Recently, public opinion has argued that since the murderer has violated the right to life of another person, the murderer’s right to life should be deprived through a principle such as “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” However, since the murderer is also a human being, if we ignore his dignity, it will result in the overall undermining of human dignity. Moreover, if the death penalty is frequently imposed, it could even encourage a culture that disregards human life.
Second, the death penalty should be abolished because it is not suitable for the purpose of rehabilitation through punishment that the criminal law aims to achieve. Imposing the death penalty on a criminal makes rehabilitation impossible, which is a punishment that goes against the spirit of the criminal law. It can be said that this is a judgment that is more retaliatory than educational. Also, by sentencing a criminal to life imprisonment instead of the death penalty, the criminal can be permanently isolated from society, so there is no need to take his or her life.
Third, from a preventive perspective, most criminals sentenced to death are mentally unstable or choose to commit suicide after committing a crime, so the deterrent effect of the death penalty is minimal. In other words, criminals who commit crimes that are punishable by death are unable to recognize that the acts they commit will result in the death penalty due to fear and terror at the time of the crime. This is especially true for mentally unstable people or those who commit crimes accidentally. People who commit premeditated murder often commit crimes without seriously considering the death penalty. In addition, given the current increase in violent crimes, people who have committed similar crimes often commit the same crimes even though they know what punishment they received through the media. This suggests that the deterrent effect of punishment is low. Therefore, even if the death penalty, the highest penalty under criminal law, exists, it is unlikely to have a significant deterrent effect.
Fourth, social perceptions of the abolition of the death penalty are changing. Since the establishment of true democracy in the 1990s, the problems of the death penalty, which was seen as similar to other forms of punishment, have been pointed out. Although public opinion in favor of the death penalty is still dominant in South Korea, the number of people supporting the abolition of the death penalty is steadily increasing. The reliability of public opinion polls can also be compromised because they fluctuate greatly depending on whether or not a heinous crime has occurred. Legislation such as the “Special Act on the Abolition of the Death Penalty” is also being proposed in the National Assembly. This legislation argues that the death penalty has no deterrent effect, that it is unfair for humans to decide the lives of other humans, and that the world should join the trend of abolishing the death penalty.
The Stockholm Declaration, issued in 1977, contains an unconditional opposition to the death penalty. One of the conditions for joining the European Union (EU) is that the country must abolish the death penalty. Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon also supported the resolution to abolish the death penalty, calling it “progress towards the ultimate abolition of the death penalty.”
Finally, the death penalty should be abolished because of the possibility of errors in sentencing. Unlike other punishments, the death penalty cannot be reversed once it is imposed. If an innocent person is found to be guilty after the death penalty is imposed due to a wrongful conviction, it would be a serious problem because the state has killed a person through the law. To solve this problem, the three-judge system is used to reduce the possibility of errors in judgment, but there is still a possibility of misjudgment because the truth may not be revealed in the trial process. In addition, there is a growing demand for the revival of the death penalty due to various violent crimes, but this can make it difficult for judges to make fair judgments because public criticism can put psychological pressure on them. In a judicial system where human emotions are involved, it is difficult to guarantee a completely logical and fair judgment.
One such case is the Alfred Dreyfus case. Alfred Dreyfus, a French Jew of Alsatian origin, was arrested in 1894 for treason for providing military secrets to Germany. Although some experts believed that his handwriting did not match the classified documents, the investigation headquarters determined that it did and sentenced him to life in prison. However, in 1898, during a re-investigation, the real culprit was revealed and his innocence was proven, but the military authorities at the time did not admit the miscarriage of justice. This was an incident that exposed the prejudice against Jews and the issue of miscarriage of justice, and if the death penalty had been carried out, the authorities would not have been able to be held accountable for the judicial murder.
In addition to the above reasons, the death penalty is an inhumane and outdated system that is incompatible with human dignity and must be abolished.
