Can you imagine how it would feel if one person lost their life as a result of a decision I made a year ago?
It happened to a judge who dismissed an arrest warrant for a stalker in October 2021.
At this time, the stalker released by the judge brutally murdered the victim about a year later.
[Jeon Joo-hwan / Sindang Station Stalking Killer]
"I did something really crazy."
A judge's decision led to an irreversible tragedy.
So, why did the judge release the stalker?
Arrest Warrants, Misconceptions and Truths
This is because you cannot detain a person in the course of an investigation just because the perpetrator is likely to harm the victim.
Even if it seems obvious that another stalker will happen, that means the judge cannot issue an arrest warrant for that reason alone.
Why?
That's what the law says.
If you look at the Criminal Procedure Act, the principle of investigation without detention comes first, which means that the basic principle is not to detain people when investigating a crime.
'Do not bind' is the default.
So when can I get arrested?
There are only three exceptions to the law.
First, when the place of residence of the person being investigated is not constant.
Second, when the person being investigated is likely to destroy the evidence.
Third, when the person being investigated is likely to run away.
No matter how bad a guy is, if he doesn't fall under one of these three things, it's a law that says he shouldn't be arrested and investigated.
Let's look at the case of Jeon Joo-hwan, a stalking killer at Shindang Station.
In October of last year, the judge dismissed the arrest warrant and released the arrest warrant because the judge found that none of these three conditions were met.
The reason is that the address is constant, there are records of stalking such as text messages, so it is difficult to remove evidence, and it is unlikely that they will run away.
[Woo Jong-soo / Deputy Chief of National Police Agency - Remarks from the National Assembly on September 20, 2022]
"(We requested a warrant for the first case), but it was rejected because there is no fear of escape, there is no fear of destroying evidence and having a fixed residence."
The possibility of stalking again if released as a stalker was high, but the law stipulated this way, so the judge did it according to the law.
The same reason can be seen as the reason that 32% of the arrest warrants requested by the police from last October to last August were rejected.
Can't you be arrested even if you threaten the victim?
Then, what if we could add a line to the law and make it a condition for arresting the person under investigation even if it is likely to harm the victim?
There was a time when it almost almost happened. In 2007, 15 years ago, there was a major change in the Korean detention system.
A heated debate ensued, but in the end, cases that were likely to harm the victim could not be added to the detention clause.
This is because more lawmakers were concerned that adding a binding exception would too undermine the basic principle that investigations should be conducted without arrest.
Instead, cases that are likely to harm the victim are included in the law only as factors that should be considered when reviewing an arrest warrant.
It was kind of a compromise.
However, this does mean that the judge should refer to when it is unclear whether or not there are circumstances in which arresting a person is permissible.
You still cannot be arrested just because you think you will harm the victim again.
As a result, the arrest warrants for the stalkers are dismissed one after another, and the situation where the stalkers who have been released attack the victims again are repeated.
Will it ever change?
Shouldn't it be possible to change the law again and make it a condition that can be detained even if it is likely that the victim will be harmed?
In fact, such a bill is out there and it looks like it will be discussed in the National Assembly.
But the courts take a different view.
Rather than that method, it is argued that an alternative called 'conditional release' is better.
Right now, if the arrest warrant is dismissed, they will be released freely, but if it is likely that they will harm the victim again like a stalker, they will wear electronic anklets and create a 'conditional' release system where their actions are monitored in real time.
The court is arguing that this is better, saying that it is a way to catch both rabbits, the basic principle of not arresting people during investigations and the protection of victims.
On the other hand, investigative agencies such as the prosecution prefer to add a reason for arrest because detaining people is much easier to manage and easier to investigate.
I do not know what measures will be adopted in the future, but it is clear that the state is not sufficiently protecting the victims right now.
The first regular National Assembly session under the Yoon Seok-Yeol administration started on September 1st, and I hope that before the 100 days of the regular National Assembly session are over, a sure way to protect victims from stalking crimes is enacted into law.
The judges only made decisions according to the law, and as a result, if unfair deaths and harm are repeated, then those laws and systems must be broken somewhere.
(Planning: Yoon-sik Jeong / Video coverage: Dong-hwan Shin / Editing: Bok-hyeong Kim / Content design: Seong-eun Kim / Production: D Content Planning Department)