In this blog post, we will look at whether the death penalty system actually has an effect on crime prevention and social stability, as well as its necessity and controversy.
It is a fact that most people feel that the current laws of the Republic of Korea are very weak. It is also clear that the recidivism rate is high because criminals are not given strict punishment and are given lenient sentences. This has led to the saying that Korea is a good country for criminals to live in, and the anxiety of the people is growing in the harsh social climate. Against this backdrop, many people believe that the death penalty should be imposed on heinous criminals to root out the source of crime.
The death penalty is the heaviest punishment among the penalties for violating the criminal law, and it is also called the “life sentence” because it deprives a person of his or her life. Recently, there has been a heated debate over the death penalty as a number of particularly heinous sex crimes have occurred. However, since no executions have taken place in South Korea since December 30, 1997, the International Committee of the Red Cross has classified 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 on 5,030 men and women aged 10-99 nationwide showed that 72% were in favor of maintaining the death penalty and 69% were in favor of executing the death penalty.
I believe that the death penalty should be fully implemented in South Korea to eliminate social evils and promote social stability. I will now explain my position in favor of the death penalty using four reasons.
First, the death penalty is very important in terms of ‘crime prevention’. The death penalty is the most severe form of punishment, and therefore has a strong 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 crime rate. If it is actually enforced, it will create a fear of crime and prevent crime before it occurs. Those who oppose it argue that there is no data to prove that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on crime, and that the claim that the death penalty is scary and prevents crime is irrelevant. They cite the United States and Canada as examples, explaining that the number of murders in the United States increased after the death penalty was reinstated, while in Canada, where the death penalty was abolished, the murder rate per 100,000 people decreased by 44%. However, this is a judgment based on looking at only some cases.
According to data submitted by the Ministry of Justice of South Korea to the National Assembly’s Legislative and Judicial Committee, during the 10 years since the death penalty was not carried out in South Korea in 1998, the number of murder cases increased by an average of 193 cases per year, or 32%, compared to the period before the death penalty was suspended (before 1997). Currently, 57 death row inmates have been left unattended even after receiving a death sentence, and the number of murder cases has increased by 30%. In addition, according to the National Crime Information Center’s Criminal Record Report, 63% of self-surrendered felons said they decided to turn themselves in because of the fear of the death penalty. These cases clearly show the positive impact of the death penalty on crime deterrence, and it can be seen that the crime rate decreases and the possibility of recidivism decreases when the death penalty is in place.
Second, the execution of death sentences for heinous crimes can reduce the harm to innocent citizens. By removing the seeds of crime, we can make our society safer. However, opponents argue that the possibility of a wrongful execution is a problem. They argue that no one can compensate for the death penalty due to a wrongful execution, and that innocent citizens may be sacrificed. However, this possibility is very low. Currently, the sentence is determined through a complex three-trial process in the process of handling crimes, and the judge goes through a proper procedure before collecting evidence and deciding on the death penalty. Therefore, the possibility of a miscarriage of justice is very small. Even if there is a miscarriage of justice, it can occur not only in the death penalty but also in life imprisonment or a fine. If we are afraid of miscarriage of justice and fail to impose a suitable punishment on criminals, we will not be able to punish any crime properly.
If criminals like Yu Young-cheol and Kang Ho-soon had received heavy sentences commensurate with their crimes before they became 11th and 7th offenders, more damage could have been prevented than that caused by victims of miscarriages of justice. Opponents also express concern that the death penalty could lead to the revival of a dictatorship. However, unlike the past dictatorship, the current South Korean judiciary is not subject to government power and follows the principles of democracy worldwide. Therefore, the possibility of a return to dictatorship is very low. Even in the United States, where the death penalty is still in place, dictatorship has not taken hold or there have been no coups.
Third, I think it is unfair to protect the lives and human rights of violent criminals on an equal basis with those of innocent people. Opponents of the death penalty cite human dignity as the most important reason for opposing the death penalty. However, in order to protect human dignity, I believe that we must first do what we should do as human beings, and that those who fail to do so should be punished accordingly. Opponents argue that executing criminals for their immoral behavior is no different from murder. However, this is a false perception. The murders committed by murderers are not for the purpose of bringing justice, and the death penalty, which is carried out in the name of the state, is carried out as a just punishment for crimes.
Finally, I believe that life imprisonment or the non-execution of the death penalty, which are funded by taxpayers’ money, is a waste of tax money. Since 1998, the death penalty has been handed down in South Korea but not carried out, and as a result, death row inmates are treated the same as ordinary inmates as they are classified as undecided prisoners. The cost of their welfare is 1.6 million won per death row inmate per year, and the cost is increasing as the number of death row inmates increases. As a result, death row inmates who deserve to be condemned are allowed to live comfortably in prison at the expense of taxpayers. Therefore, the death penalty should be imposed to prevent the waste of taxpayers’ money.
Opponents argue that taking a human life for economic reasons makes no sense. However, the real reason for the death penalty is “a just punishment for serious crimes,” and proponents only present economic reasons as a secondary basis. Also, the argument that the cost of maintaining the death penalty is higher than that of life imprisonment is based on the example of the United States, and there are reports that the cost of executing death sentences is lower than the cost of not executing them in South Korea. I believe that the cost problem can also be solved by improving procedures to reduce litigation costs.
Singapore is a very strict country when it comes to punishing criminals. The death penalty is imposed for murder, the use of illegal weapons, and possession and trade of a certain amount of drugs. As a result, Singapore has a very low crime rate, which is believed to be due to the strict enforcement of the death penalty. I argue that if South Korea strictly enforces the death penalty like Singapore, the crime rate will decrease and social evils will be eliminated.
