Last week, Korea was hot with the controversy over 'electronic anklets'.
After the incident of Kang Yun-seong, who damaged an electronic anklet and killed two women, it was later revealed that a man had sexually assaulted a minor in his home wearing an electronic anklet.
Wearing an electronic anklet, he committed the same crime again.
There have been voices of concern that the electronic anklet system is not operating properly.
The Ministry of Justice distributed the following press release right after the horrific incident in which Kang Yun-seong damaged an electronic anklet and killed two people.
The press release revealed the status of sexual assault crimes by so-called 'e-supervisors' wearing electronic anklets, and emphasized that the recidivism rate decreased by 0.11% compared to last year.
The damage rate was also lowered.
It reads to mean that the management is doing well.
It's not that the Justice Department's statistics are wrong.
However, I would like to take a closer look at the statistics presented by the Ministry of Justice and think about other lines in the statistics.
Electronic anklet recidivism victims, dozens of people a year
It is true that the recidivism rate has significantly decreased since the introduction of electronic anklets in 2008.
The recidivism rate before introduction was 14.1% on average for five years, but has been maintained at 1~2% since then.
Electronic anklets definitely worked.
The rate of damage to electronic anklets is also high. As of last year, 13 out of 6,196 cases, or 0.46%. In foreign countries, the damage rate is not well published, but in the United States and Australia, the damage rate is known to be around 1-3%. In Korea, it is a relatively low level of 0.3~0.4%. In particular, in the United States, the damage rate is higher by using the silicone material, which is the early model of our electronic anklets. Since its implementation in 2008, the strength of our electronic anklets has been increased by inserting reinforced film in 2009, iron wire in 2010, and inserting stainless steel plate in 2012.
The statistics are clearly positive. But still, someone continues to suffer. A recidivism rate of 1-2% seems like a small number, but it is also said that there are dozens of repeat offenders a year. Regardless of the size of the damage, victims live with lifelong scars. Such incidents as the 2012 murder of Seo Jin-hwan and the murder of Kang Yun-sung last month should never happen again, which was committed while wearing an electronic anklet.
Let's take a closer look at the graph above. After the implementation of the electronic anklet system in 2008, there were zero recidivism cases the following year. There were no victims. However, in 2010, 3 cases (0.65%) occurred, and in 2011, it jumped to 15 cases (2.19%). 21 cases in 2012 (2.4%), 30 cases in 2013 (1.72%), and 48 cases in 2014 (2.3%). The number of cases of sexual assault again after wearing an electronic anklet has been maintained at the 2% level since 2010. There are dozens of victims every year.
Academia is paying attention to the reason why the recidivism rate has risen from 0 to 2% since 2010.
In 2010, the National Assembly passed a bill to amend the Electronic Anklet Act, which allows the application of electronic anklets retroactively for three years.
As of September 1, 2008, when this law came into force, the amendment made it possible to attach an electronic anklet to sex offenders who were serving a sentence or had not been released from prison for less than three years.
The wear period has also been significantly increased from the current 10 years to 30 years.
The retrospective application was controversial even at the time.
According to <2008: 10 Years of Electronic Supervision in Korea> published by the Ministry of Justice in 2018, the reason why the recidivism rate increased to 2% in the 2010s is described as follows.
"This is due to the enforcement of the retroactive application regulations for attaching electronic devices to those who were sentenced in the first instance before September 1, 2008 and three years have not passed since the end of imprisonment, etc., on July 16, 2010. , it is analyzed that the recidivism rate is relatively high as the resistance and antipathy to retrospective application is severe, and the attachment period is often long.”
- Ministry of Justice, <2008: 10 Year History of Korean Electronic Supervision>, 2018
This is an analysis that retroactively applied legislation to severely punish criminals has increased the recidivism rate again.
Paradox of toughening punishment
Journalists are always close to the crime scene. Sometimes we learn about brutal crimes that we can't even tell from the news. I can't help but be angry with the criminal more than anyone else. Naturally, 'strengthening punishment' is also an rhetoric often used by reporters in their articles. Personally, I have a few terrible memories that are close to trauma when I was a reporter.
<Actually>, the team believes that it is necessary to think about how the system should be supplemented with a telescope of statistics. If you think about it carefully, it seems that the 'justice' that such a thing should never happen again should be prioritized over 'anger' at the brutal criminal. This is because, as in the case above, if the reaction of strengthening punishment increases and the possibility that our family and our neighbors are at risk increases, as a result, it means that the utility of strengthening punishment alone is not very high. We need to calm our anger for a moment and think about what policies we need at this moment.
Whenever a crime occurred while wearing an electronic anklet, or an incident where the anklet was damaged, controversy arose about the system's failure and its ineffectiveness. People were angry and afraid, and they demanded severe punishment. The level of punishment has increased due to the extension of the attachment period, the implementation of one-on-one electronic supervision, and the strengthening of the strength of the electronic anklet considering the possibility of damage rather than the wearer's convenience. The 'three-year retroactive legislation' is an example of such a policy to strengthen punishment.
Kim Ji-sun, a senior researcher at the Korea Institute for Criminal Justice Policy, who has been studying the electronic anklet problem for a long time, said in an interview with the fact-eun team, "It should also be taken into account that excessive external and situational control or reinforced punishment can cause resistance in the subject of the electronic anklet. “He says.
It is read as a concern that such resistance may come back to harm to our family and our neighbors.
Balancing Surveillance and Treatment
Whenever an electronic anklet-related incident occurs, we cannot unconditionally blame the Ministry of Justice, which is the responsible department. Managing criminals who do not know where they are going is not easy. It has been reported in various media, but the manpower is insufficient. Management always has its limits.
However, I believe it is time to change the policy direction in a way that prevents a single victim, rather than lowering the overall recidivism rate with the 'strengthened' electronic anklet policy. It is difficult to lower the current recidivism rate of 1~2%, which is maintained continuously, only with a one-way policy to strengthen punishment. Dozens of people are still affected each year.
In other words, it requires an effort to find a balance between 'monitoring' and 'treatment'. The Ministry of Justice's <2008: 10-Year History of Electronic Supervision in Korea> wrote that "20% of those subject to electronic supervision are mentally ill or identified as suspected of mental illness." The overall recidivism rate is significantly lowered with electronic anklets, and the gap is offset through treatment. You must take the direction of 'monitoring' through the electronic anklet and complete it through 'treatment'. Many experts agree that the key to the success of the electronic anklet policy is the 'mandatory' treatment requirement.
Reducing recidivism rates with effective psychotherapy can be costly. That's budget savings.
“When appropriate treatment is provided for criminally sanctioned offenders, the number of repeat offenders can be significantly reduced, reducing future victims ... It has been confirmed that the cost of treating 60 people is equivalent to the cost of one sex offender for a year, and the effect of saving the national finances is large.”
- William L. Marshall, PhD, Liam E. Marshall, Geris A. Serran, Rehabilitating Sexual Offenders: A Strength-Based Approach, 2011.
The “Social Costs of Crime Estimation Report” published by the Korea Criminal Justice Policy Research Institute in 2010 calculated that the social cost per crime was 200 million won for rape, 17.3 billion won for murder, 85 billion won for abduction, and 45 million won for robbery. .
Psychological treatment costs around 100,000 won per session.
(Interns: Kwon Min-sun, Song Hae-yeon)