The recent spate of violent sex crimes has reignited the old debate on the death penalty. On one side of the debate are people enraged by the appalling kidnapping and rape of a 7-year-old girl in Naju, South Jeolla Province. They are calling for execution of those who commit heinous sex crimes.
These people urge the government to lift the moratorium on executions, which has been in place since 1998, as it contributes to increasing violent sex crimes.
They also argue that keeping death row prisoners alive not only runs counter to people’s sense of justice but makes it difficult for the victims and their families to come to terms with the traumatic events they experienced.
More importantly, they point out that the moratorium is in violation of current law. The Criminal Act specifies death penalty as a kind of punishment. Hence the court hands down death sentences. The problem is that the court rulings are not executed.
The responsibility to carry out the verdicts is on the minister of justice. The Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that when the court hands down a death sentence, the justice minister should issue the execution order within six months. Then the execution should be carried out within five days.
Yet in 1998, President Kim Dae-jung introduced an unofficial moratorium on executions. Since then, successive ministers of justice have held off issuing execution orders, thereby effectively invalidating court rulings. Hence demand from death penalty supporters that the government abide by the law.
On the other side of the debate are people who regard the death penalty as the ultimate denial of human rights. They not just oppose lifting the moratorium but call for an outright abolition of capital punishment.
These people warn against resuming executions of sex offenders, saying it is not the right solution to the problem. They note that the recent increase in horrendous sex crimes is a symptom, not a disease. In addition, they say there is no evidence that executions deter crimes.
Opponents also say the death penalty entails the risk of judicial errors that can never be corrected. Politicians of the main opposition Democratic United Party point to the danger of judicial murder, the unjustified execution of the death penalty.
They cite the 1975 example where the then dictatorial government executed eight men on fabricated charges of conspiring to overthrow the government. They were later found to be innocent, but it was too late.
While opponents have an irrefutable case, opinion polls show they are in the minority. The ongoing debate is clearly tilting toward resuming executions of sex offenders.
Aware of public sentiment on the issue, the government suggested it might consider lifting the 15-year-old moratorium on executions, if there was a social consensus for it.
The government is under pressure from politicians of the ruling Saenuri Party, who might seek to take advantage of the public furor over the recent child rape case.
Yet the government should be cautious about executing death row inmates. It needs to be reminded that the global trend is clearly toward the abolition of capital punishment.
According to a United Nations tally, more than 140 countries have either legally abolished the death penalty or stopped applying the punishment in practice.
If the government resumes executions, Korea could face serious repercussions from the international community, especially the European Union, which has made abolition of capital punishment a condition for membership.
Internationally, Korea is already recognized as an “abolitionist in practice” ― which means it retains the death penalty but has not executed anyone for at least 10 years and is believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions.
Under these circumstances, it would be unwise to resume executions. While public opinion is in favor of executing sex offenders who are sentenced to death, it is in reality not a viable option, given Korea’s efforts to project the image of an advanced country in terms of human rights.
Eventually the government will have to abolish the death penalty because it is not implemented. The status quo is simply untenable, as it forces justice ministers to violate the law repeatedly. Left uncorrected, this will seriously undermine the rule of law.
In this regard, the government needs to ditch the death penalty and strictly implement life imprisonment without parole. To curb sex crimes, the court also needs to toughen punishment for them.
