<Anchor>



Today (14th) at the Constitutional Court, an open debate will be held on whether the death penalty is unconstitutional.

It is the first time in 12 years since the second constitutional decision was made in 2010 that the death penalty is brought to the Constitutional Court.



Correspondent Park Chan-geun.



<Reporter>



An open pleading for a constitutional lawsuit to determine whether the death penalty is unconstitutional will be held this afternoon at the Supreme Court of the Constitutional Court.



This is the defense of the constitutional wish case in February 2019, in which the death penalty was unconstitutional by Mr. Yoon, who was sentenced to death in the first trial after killing her parents.



The issue is whether the death penalty violates Articles 10 and 37 (2) of the Constitution.



Whether the punishment of the state depriving an individual of life does not violate the constitutional provisions that the state must guarantee inviolable basic human rights, and whether it does not violate the provision that its essential contents cannot be infringed even when freedom and rights are restricted. is expected to be.



In today's argument, a fierce debate is expected between the pros and cons.



Mr. Yoon, who filed the unconstitutional lawsuit, argues that it is difficult to see that there is any solid evidence that the death penalty deter crimes more effectively than other punishments.



On the other hand, the Ministry of Justice, a stakeholder, is of the view that life imprisonment without parole cannot replace the death penalty, considering human survival instincts, the fundamental fear of death, and the general public's notion of justice.



For a decision to be unconstitutional, more than 6 out of 9 judges need the consent of the Constitutional Court, but it seems it will take some time for the results to come out after the pleadings.



Previously, in 1996 and 2010, the constitutionality of the death penalty was judged to be constitutional by a vote of 7-2 and 5-4.



As the times have changed, the differences of opinion have narrowed, so it is noteworthy whether a different result will be obtained this time.