No. 152 / Jun 7, 2021
Written law is a system that allows the state to act only as it prescribes. Thus, the nation can only perform fixed actions. This has two potential outcomes. On the one hand, people can better protect their rights from the state, for the law restricts it from taking arbitrary actions. Yet, on the other hand, the public’s trust in the country decreases because judgment is limited. Accordingly, judgment inconsistent with the people’s demands is relatively more common in countries that adopt the written law, like Korea.
One incident that sparked public opposition to a ruling was the Cho Doo-soon sex crime case. In 2008, Cho sexually assaulted an 8-year-old girl in a church bathroom in Ansan. In the first trial, the court gave him to a low sentence, 12 years imprisonment because he was elderly and was intoxicated at the time of the crime. Moreover, the prosecutor abandoned the recourse because Cho had cleaned up the crime scene, leaving insufficient evidence. Cho applied for recourse, claiming his sentence was excessive. The parents of the victim informed the crime to the media, and it gained substantial notoriety before the second trial. The public wanted the second judge to impose a strong sentence, but the judge in the second trial issued the same sentence that was given in the first one.The public was very upset that the criminal’s alcohol consumption was the reason for the reduced sentence. Indeed, there was no time increase. Public attention was at its peak when the second trial was imminent, thus the second judge was the focus of much critique. The justice felt stifled and appealed to the people. Since South Korea is a country of written law, a criminal who appeals cannot be sentenced more harshly than the original ruling to substantially guarantee the defendant’s right to appeal.
As such incidents repeatedly occur, the public laments the weak punishments prescribed by the state and directly imposes personal sanctions. Digital prisons and bad parent sites are examples of the latter. On these websites, users disclose the identity of sex offenders and husbands or wives who have not paid child support. While digital prison is illegal, the bad parent sites are not. It is why the former frequently made the mistake of disclosing innocent people’s personal information, while the latter has not maliciously slandered subjects and has helped victims to receive child support.
As we can see from the digital prison case, personal sanctions require great care in that they can victimize innocents. However, such instances also present an opportunity to reflect the people’s demands from the law. For example, the sentence reduction clause for alcohol has been removed, and electronic bracelets are being developed to monitor criminals’ drinking status. Ideally, the law would be perfect, but since it is determined by humans, the legal system requires continuously supplementation. As times change, a certain level of change in the law is required to better protect both victims and the general public. Personal sanctions may be a reference point in that regard.
By Kim Min-ji, AG Cub Reporter
mmoboo77@ajou.ac.kr
Комментарии