[Editorial] No leniency

President Park Geun-hye is expected to convene a Cabinet meeting Thursday to finalize the scope of the special pardons to mark the 70th anniversary of Korea’s liberation from Japan’s colonial rule. A committee under the Justice Ministry is to draw up a preliminary list of people to be granted the presidential pardon during its meeting Monday.

Park has said this year’s Aug. 15 Liberation Day should serve as an occasion for the nation to be proud of what it has accomplished over the past decades and prepare for another leap forward. To highlight the meaning of the anniversary, government officials suggest, the planned pardon is likely to be given to more than 2 million people.

The massive number of beneficiaries does not fit well with Park’s criticism of her predecessors for abusing presidential authority to grant pardons for cheap political gains. The first pardon under her presidency, conducted in January 2014, was given to just 5,925 people.

It may be understandable that her administration is easing its principled stance on granting amnesties to fit the festive mood of the landmark anniversary. The public may largely agree to provide convicted businessmen with opportunities to make up for their wrongdoings by devoting themselves again to increasing the competitiveness of their businesses and thus contributing to reinvigorating the economy.

But it would be wrong to grant amnesty to those who have had their driving licenses revoked or suspended for violating traffic laws, especially drunk drivers.

Government officials say only those who have been caught drunk driving for the first time would be subject to the special pardon. But drunk driving is an act that should never be treated with leniency under any circumstance.

What should be noted is the statistics showing that road accident rates have increased substantially in the period following previous pardons for traffic law violators.

The rate rose by 6.5 percent in 1996, 15 percent in 1999 and 4.2 percent in 2003 from the previous years when offenders of road rules were pardoned. In contrast, the rate was down by 10 percent and 11 percent in 2000 and 2001, respectively, when no amnesty was granted in the preceding years.

These figures explicitly show that the pardons have more than offset the gains in traffic safety from the removal of reckless drivers from the road. More sarcastically speaking, past presidential pardons have been successful at putting dangerous drivers back on the roads.

More serious consideration should be given to social and economic costs incurred by drunk drivers and other traffic offenders. The traffic fatality rate in Korea has remained at the highest level among major advanced industrialized countries.

Special pardon may be necessary in some cases to balance the rigid enforcement of legal justice with actual conditions in everyday life. But granting pardons to drunk drivers and habitual traffic offenders should not be considered.

President Park vowed to build a safer society in the wake of the tragic ferry sinking last year, which claimed more than 300 lives. Damaging the safety effect of the traffic law does not serve this effort. Park should not step back from her adherence to principles to grant amnesty to reckless drivers at the risk of endangering other citizens’ lives.

Furthermore, this senseless pardon would contradict the spirit Koreans should strengthen on the occasion of the 70th Liberation Day to go beyond what they have achieved so far and build a country that commands respect from people around the world.