hankyoreh

An interview piece featuring Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-youl from the Tuesday issue of the Kookmin Ilbo

In a recent interview, Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-youl denounced a push by members of the ruling Democratic Party to fully separate investigation and indictment powers and strip the prosecutors of their direct investigation role by creating an investigation agency for serious crimes. Yoon called the effort a “regression of democracy that destroys the spirit of the Constitution.”

As someone directly impacted by prosecutorial reforms, Yoon is entitled to express his opinion. But it is inappropriate for a public official to make such extreme statements, going so far as to repudiate the advanced criminal justice principle of separating investigation and indictment powers.

Not only that, but the Democratic Party and administration have yet to even reach a conclusion on whether to establish the agency in the first place. Official procedures are still underway to gather opinions from prosecutors. By taking the unprecedented step of speaking out as prosecutor general in an interview with a particular newspaper, he has opened himself up to criticisms that his actions are political in nature.

Most experts agree that separation of investigation and indictment duties is the global standard. Yet Yoon voiced the exact opposite position, insisting that investigations and indictments “must be integrated to enforce the law effectively and uphold the public’s interests.”

It’s difficult to even count many times the prosecutors’ insistence on their role as an “investigative organization” — as opposed to playing a controlling role on other investigative organizations as an objective party — has led them to pursue ill-advised indictments, resorting to tactics such as human rights infringements and evidence falsification, only to end up facing an acquittal. The separation of investigation and indictment roles is itself a criminal justice system devised to uphold the public’s interests.

Yoon emphasized the importance of “responding sternly to violations by the socially powerful and vested interests.” This can also be achieved effectively through a healthy relationship of checks and cooperation among different organizations tasked with investigations and indictments.

With the prosecutors monopolizing investigations and indictments, there has been no recourse in the past when they have gone easy with their investigations of friendly administrations and conglomerates. Some have even argued that the biggest beneficiaries of this monopoly are prosecutors who have committed improprieties.

Some of the things that Yoon mentioned are indeed things that need to be seriously discussed. He argued the need for close linkage between investigations and indictments to respond to serious crimes that are becoming increasingly sophisticated and large-scale.

But that in itself can’t be used as a basis for arguing that the prosecutors should possess sweeping investigative authority and indictment powers as a single vast organization. Yoon himself said, “We’ve talked about splitting the prosecutors up if it’s a question of our authority becoming too vast.”

The push to create a serious crimes investigation agency would follow within this same context. But there seems also to be the need for a multifaceted examination of things like the experiences of other countries to determine whether institutions in charge of investigating specific crimes — such as those related to corruption, economic affairs and drugs — should possess investigation and indictment powers simultaneously, or whether those too should be separated.

In some ways, the ruling party gave Yoon the excuse he needed for his remarks with their rush to forge ahead with the serious crimes investigation agency without sufficient consideration or discussion. As the flap between Yoon and former Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae showed, they must not lose sight of the importance of winning the public’s support when it comes to prosecutorial reform.

What isn’t right is when Yoon dives right into confrontation with the ruling party, with his talk about “destroying the spirit of the Constitution,” “destroying the rule of law” or the “collapse of the criminal justice system,” or with his remarks about how “we’ve seen how hard corrupt leaders make things for their people in Central and South American countries” and how he would “put my job on the line 100 times to stop this.”

It’s enough to give the impression that his aims are less about shaping rational public opinion and more about political incitement or simply throwing his weight around. This is especially true when we consider the remarks about how “political” his actions as a sitting prosecutor general have been — including his allusions to a possible future in actual politics after he steps down.

The establishment of a serious crimes investigation agency has the potential to bring major changes to our criminal justice system. We hope neither the politicians nor the prosecutors lose their grip on circumspection or restraint.

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