Recent crimes spur death penalty debate

Posted on : 2012-09-05 14:09 KST Modified on : 2019-10-19 20:29 KST
Park Geun-hye says capital punishment acts as deterrent, experts question its effectiveness

By Park Hyun-chul and Kim Tae-gyu, staff reporters

Park Geun-hye declared on Sept. 4 that she was opposed to abolishing the death penalty.

Responding to questions on whether she would enforce the death penalty if elected president, the New Frontier Party candidate said she was “someone who called for it in the past, too.”

The death penalty matter now looks poised to become a major issue, with a recent series of horrific crimes in South Korea and the Democratic United Party primary candidates calling for its abolition.

Park, who was attending a luncheon with reporters at a Yeouido restaurant Aug. 4, gave her remarks when asked for thoughts on public demands for the execution of people who commit sexual assaults on minors.

“When something truly heinous and unacceptable happens, something that sacrifices one’s humanity, I think [the option] needs to be available as a warning that the perpetrator may die as a consequence,” she said.

“Back when there was a previous move to abolish the death penalty, the decision was that it should be weighed carefully and not abolished altogether,” she added.

During her primary run with the Grand National Party (the NFP’s predecessor) in 2007, Park said, “I think the death penalty ultimately needs to be abolished, but it should continue to exist in some symbolic form.”

Her remarks triggered a fierce outcry from civic groups and academics who have been leading the push to end the system, with critics lambasting what they called Park’s “anti-human rights” position.

“You could argue that the perpetrator of a heinous crime has ‘sacrificed their humanity,’ but that doesn’t mean they’re not a human being,” said Park Jin-ok, director of the campaign bureau for the South Korean chapter of Amnesty International.

"If you agree that all people have a right to life that must be respected, then the death penalty should not be enforced, since it is an inhumane form of punishment,” Park said.

Park Jin-ok went on to say it was “unfortunate” for a leading presidential candidate to be expressing her support for the death penalty at a time when South Korea has been leading the push to end the punishment in Asia. The country has not executed anyone since 1997 and is considered “abolitionist in practice.”

Hoh Il-tae, a professor at Dong-A University and chairman of the Korean Council for Abolition of the Death Penalty, said that the state is “not an emotional being like an individual.”

“How can a country make laws telling you not to kill and then turn around and kill people itself?” he asked.

“A politician dealing in policy matters needs to consider things from a rational and moral standpoint rather than making judgments based in retrograde personal emotions of ‘revenge’ and ‘retaliation,’” Hoh said.

Some critics also pointed to the ineffectiveness of the death penalty in preventing violent crime.

“Psychopathic criminals often commit their crimes without considering the possibility they might be executed,” said Sogang University law school professor Lee Ho-joong.

“Given the preponderance of evidence we have that the death penalty doesn’t work in preventing violent crime, we need to be premising our criminal policy on the sanctity of human life,” Lee said.

Another line of criticism focused on the “populist” tactic of taking advantage of a fear-stricken public in the wake of a horrific crime.

Myeong Suk, an activist with the Sarangbang Group for Human Rights, said, “For the death penalty to be presented as a solution to violent crime - when it has been proven ineffective at doing just that - suggests an attempt to stir up public opinion.”

“Abolition of the death penalty is the right thing to do, if only to prevent the debate from being used by politicians for political ends at election time,” she added.

Kim Deok-jin, secretary-general of the Catholic Human Rights Committee, noted that the South Korean government has been working to prevent violent crime without enforcing the death penalty for the past 15 years.

“Park Geun-hye’s remarks are evidence that she hasn’t researched or given much deep consideration to this situation,” Kim said.

Park Jin-ok compared Park Geun-hye’s remarks with those of Norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg, who responded to the massacre of 77 people in Norway last year by calling for the public to respond with greater tolerance and democracy.

“The governing philosophy of a country’s leader represents the level or state it has reached, as well as sustaining and developing it,” Park Jin-ok said.

The “effectiveness” issue was front and center when the Constitutional Court ruled in a five-to-four decision in February 2010 that the death penalty was constitutional. The dissenting judges pointed to questions about the punishment’s effectiveness, writing that it was “not at all clear” what the crime prevention effects of the death penalty were and arguing that the same goal could be achieved with life sentences without possibility of parole.

The majority opinion stated that the death penalty “has the most powerful deterrent effect on crime, given the human survival instinct and fundamental fear of death. [Punishing heinous crimes] with life sentences does not accord with the concept of justice for the victim’s family and the public at large.”

But the dissenting view countered, “It cannot be said that crime has worsened simply because we have not enforced the death penalty since 1997. The death penalty has lost its effectiveness.”

 

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]

 

button that move to original korean article (클릭시 원문으로 이동하는 버튼)

Related stories