Enlarging an image
News summary on the way home from work, Subsletter Evening.
A public debate has begun to determine whether the death penalty is constitutional.
The history of the debate over the existence of the death penalty goes back to the enactment of the Penal Code in 1953, and it is said that this is the third time that the Constitutional Court has questioned whether the death penalty is unconstitutional.
In 1996, the decision was made to be constitutional by a 7 to 2 opinion of the judges and a 5 to 4 opinion by the judges in 2010. What about this time?
Death penalty after 12 years
The death penalty was brought up to the public court of the Constitutional Court, and a fierce battle over its existence ensued.
Enlarging an image
The 'death penalty case', which the Constitutional Court held a public hearing, is a case to determine whether the 'death penalty' part of the Criminal Act <Article 41(1)> and <Article 250(2)> violates the Constitution.
Criminal Act Article 41, No. 1: The types of punishment are as follows.
1. Death penalty
Article 250 Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Act: A person who kills a lineal ascendant of himself or his spouse shall be punished by death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with labor for not less than 7 years.
The issues at issue are whether the death penalty is against 'human dignity and worth,' and whether it infringes on the essential content of the basic right, the right to life. Articles such as Article 10 of the Constitution are related to this trial.
Article 10 of the Constitution: All citizens have dignity and worth as human beings and have the right to pursue happiness.
The State has the duty to confirm and guarantee the inviolable and fundamental human rights of individuals.
Article 110 Paragraph 4, which only states the death penalty in the constitutional article, is also said to be an issue as to whether this constitutes the constitutional basis for the death penalty.
Fierce battles inside and outside the courtroom
Let's start with the argument of the claimant who filed the constitutional complaint.
I have summarized it into three categories below.
1) Our Constitution does not allow the death penalty 2) Life is an absolute value, so it is not of a nature that can be judged anti-value or deprived through legal evaluation 3) Scientific research on whether the death penalty has the effect of deterring crime There is no result, and there is no way to correct it even if it later turns out to be a misjudgment.
The petitioner of the constitutional complaint is Mr. A, who murdered his parents in 2018. During the first trial, he received a death sentence and applied to the court for an adjudication on the constitutionality of the law, but it was not accepted.
Person A has since been sentenced to life in prison by the Supreme Court.
Enlarging an image
In response to the claimant's claim, the Ministry of Justice argues for the necessity of the death penalty and refutes it.
Let me summarize the Justice Department's opinion.
1) Maintaining the death penalty alone does not mean that the country is backward or barbaric. 2) The Constitution indirectly recognizes the death penalty, at least for the interpretation of the text. 3) It prevents the occurrence of crimes and (..) 4) The possibility of misjudgment is a fatal limitation of the judicial system, and it is difficult to view it as a problem with the punishment system itself, such as the death penalty.
Opinions were also opposed outside the courthouse, and groups advocating the abolition of the death penalty held a rally outside the Constitutional Court.
Enlarging an image
Minister of Justice Han Dong-hoon met with reporters before the public pleading and gave the proviso that "it is not a question with a 100% correct answer," but expressed his position that the death penalty should be maintained.
Enlarging an image
Although it is not a question that has a 100% correct answer, the Ministry of Justice has maintained its position considering various issues such as protecting the people from vicious criminals or protecting human rights, and I think the Constitutional Court will make a wise decision.
25 years since the last execution... perception is changing
December 30, 1997.
23 death row inmates were executed, and among the 23 people, there was Kim Yong-jae, who would commit the 'don't ask murder'.
After Cho Yong-jae was executed, a book titled 'The Last Convicted Inmate' was published, a compilation of letters from Sister Cho Sung-ae and her prison diary.
No executions were carried out since then, and in 2007, ten years later, Amnesty International, an international human rights organization, classified it as a 'de facto abolitionist'.
The government also approved the resolution of the 'Moratorium on the Execution of Death Penalty (Temporarily Suspended)' at the 46th Regular Session of the 75th UN General Assembly in 2020.
The death penalty does exist, and there are death sentences in prison, but there have been no executions for nearly 25 years.
At the same time, the perception of the death penalty has also changed, as can be seen from the decisions of the Constitutional Court twice.
In the first Constitutional Court decision in 1996, the decision was made to be constitutional by 7 to 2 judges, and in 2010, the ruling was made to be constitutional by 5 to 4 judges.
The difference is narrowed.
In 2010, two out of five judges who voted for the constitutionality of the law also made a supplementary opinion that the death penalty should be reduced or the system should be gradually improved to reflect the times. .
Enlarging an image
It is interesting to see whether a change in perception will lead to a decision by the Constitutional Court. Currently, among the nine judges of the Constitutional Court, five judges, including Director Yoo Nam-seok, have explicitly stated their position on the abolition of the death penalty or made an active review at the personnel hearing.
A decision unconstitutional must be approved by at least 6 out of 9 judges, and the possibility of an unconstitutional decision cannot be ruled out.
The number of death row inmates in Korea is said to be 59 (including 4 soldiers).
They include serial killers Ho-soon Kang and Young-cheol Yoo, sergeant Immo in a mass shooting, and Jong-geun Oh in the fisherman murder case.
The oldest inmate on death row was Oh Jong-geun, born in 1938, and the longest-running inmate on death row was the original sentence for the arson case of a religious facility, which was finally sentenced in 1993.
The voice of "absolute life imprisonment" grows louder
There are growing calls for an alternative to the death penalty, and one of the alternatives is 'absolute life imprisonment'.
As the confirmation and execution of the death penalty has virtually disappeared, legislation is needed so that life imprisonment can be imposed regardless of whether the death penalty is abolished or not.
Permanent isolation cannot be guaranteed with the current 'relative life imprisonment', which is subject to parole when 20 years for an inorganic sentence and 1/3 of the sentence for an organic sentence are served.
That is why it is argued that a relative life sentence cannot completely replace the death penalty and that an absolute life sentence is necessary.
Among recent court sentences, there is no absolute life sentence, so there are quite a few cases in which the death penalty is imposed.
It's meant to make a heinous criminal sentence to life in prison.
The court of first instance sentenced Kwon Jae-chan to death for brutally taking two lives, and that sentence is what it says.
Enlarging an image
Based on the fact that the so-called 'absolute life sentence' (in Korea), which limits the possibility of parole or pardon, is not introduced under the current law. should be sentenced to death as
Some judges are asking the National Assembly to introduce a life sentence without parole at all.
Taking various circumstances into account, the accused cannot be sentenced to a sentence lighter than life imprisonment.
I hope that the legislature will enact life imprisonment without parole to keep the people safe in Korea, which is actually classified as a country that has abolished the death penalty.
However, there is also an objection that absolute life imprisonment is an act that denies the purpose of punishment itself, which is to deprive the body of freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and to rehabilitate criminals and return them to society.
In this respect, it is argued that it is unconstitutional.
Germany, which had already abolished the death penalty, introduced absolute life imprisonment, but was found to be unconstitutional and abolished.
a piece of the day
Enlarging an image
This is a picture of a racehorse, not drowning.
This is a picture of racehorses exhausted from the heat swimming in the water at the Busan Horse Association.
(Photo = Yonhap News)
Enlarging an image