This blog post examines whether the death penalty is truly the best way to achieve justice in South Korea from various perspectives.
Introduction
South Korea is currently a country that does not actually carry out executions. The last time the death penalty was carried out was on December 30, 1997, when 23 prisoners lost their lives through execution. Not a single execution has taken place since then. As of 2023, South Korea is classified as a de facto abolitionist country. While the death penalty remains on the books, countries that have not carried out executions for over a decade or have made international commitments to halt executions are considered de facto abolitionist. Approximately 30 countries fall into this category, including Russia. Meanwhile, around 60 countries, including the United States, China, and Japan, continue to carry out executions, while 12 countries, such as Brazil and Chile, have completely abolished the death penalty. Opinions on the death penalty thus vary widely among nations.
However, discussions about the death penalty resurface whenever brutal crimes, such as serial murders, occur. Each time, debates for and against abolishing the death penalty arise. I believe the death penalty should be abolished regardless of the crime committed. Since most death sentences in South Korea are handed down for murder, this article will primarily focus on murder.
Reasons the Death Penalty is Necessary
First, why is the death penalty carried out? It is the most severe punishment imposed on individuals who commit serious crimes causing significant harm to society. Its purpose is to achieve justice by imposing punishment commensurate with the gravity of the crime, and to provide some measure of solace to the victims and their families. Furthermore, executing the death penalty serves to alert society and send a strong warning message to potential criminals. One argument supporting this is that the death penalty acts as an example to deter others from committing the same crime. This is based on the expectation of a crime deterrence effect.
Particularly, heinous crimes like serial murder, sexual assault, and terrorism cause immense social shock, instilling fear and anxiety in many people. By imposing the death penalty for such crimes, society makes it clear that such acts will never be tolerated again and sends a powerful message that criminals cannot evade justice. This is also seen as an important means to resolve the victim’s sense of injustice and uphold social justice. However, I believe these very reasons are why the death penalty should be abolished.
Arguments Against the Death Penalty
First, executing criminals does not prevent the crime from happening again. In other words, the crime prevention effect of the death penalty is very limited, and the belief that the death penalty can deter crime lacks substantial evidence. While the death penalty is the most severe punishment for criminals, considering the psychology of those who commit crimes, its impact on crime deterrence is minimal. Particularly, criminals with extreme tendencies, such as psychopaths or the mentally ill, or those who commit crimes impulsively or accidentally, often do not recognize the existence of the death penalty as a punishment or feel fear towards it. They often cannot rationally assess the legal consequences of their actions, making it difficult to expect the death penalty to be effective for crime prevention. In fact, the UN investigated the link between the death penalty and crime rates on two occasions but failed to conclude that the death penalty is effective in deterring crime. Furthermore, Canada abolished the death penalty for murder in 1976, yet homicide rates gradually declined; in 1998, it completely abolished the death penalty for all crimes. This serves as a significant case supporting the argument that the death penalty does not directly contribute to crime prevention.
Second, while the death penalty is a legally permitted punishment, it is fundamentally problematic as it constitutes murder by the state. The act of the state forcibly taking a criminal’s life in the name of the law cannot deny that capital punishment is ultimately a form of murder. While the process of execution and murder committed by crime may differ, the pain and terror leading to death are identical. It is fundamentally contradictory to condemn a criminal for taking another person’s life while the state ends the criminal’s life in the same manner. Despite the state’s responsibility to protect its citizens’ lives, forcibly taking a person’s life through the death penalty is a failure to fulfill that duty. The state’s claim to legitimacy does not alter the inhumane and violent nature inherent in capital punishment. Furthermore, the state has an obligation to protect the right to life. Even if a criminal has committed a serious offense, the state forcibly taking that life constitutes a violation of human dignity and the right to life.
Third, the death penalty carries the risk of miscarriage of justice. Since death sentences depend on human judgment, they cannot be perfect. Given that not every court ruling can be correct, the possibility of error always exists. If an innocent person is sentenced to death and executed due to a miscarriage of justice, it is no different from the state murdering an innocent person. In such circumstances, the death penalty loses all justification and can no longer be viewed as legal punishment but merely as murder. With a sentence like life imprisonment, the defendant has the opportunity to correct a wrongful conviction through retrial while they are alive. However, once the death penalty is carried out, even if the verdict is overturned through retrial, the person who has already lost their life cannot be brought back. Thus, the death penalty is an irreversible punishment. This permanently deprives the state of the opportunity to correct judicial errors, potentially leading to greater tragedy through the state’s harsh punishment of taking life.
Therefore, the death penalty system not only has minimal crime prevention effects but also violates the state’s duty to protect the right to life and, due to the possibility of miscarriage of justice, can cause irreversible harm. For these reasons, the death penalty should be abolished.
Arguments in Favor of the Death Penalty
Those who support the death penalty argue that state-executed capital punishment must be strictly distinguished from murder committed by individuals. Their contention is that the state’s execution of the death penalty to punish criminals for the sake of justice is fundamentally different from murder stemming from an individual’s private desires or emotions. While private murder is often driven by emotional motives like anger, jealousy, or revenge, capital punishment arises from the state’s lawful execution of just punishment. It holds criminals accountable for their legally defined crimes, making them pay the price for their offenses, while simultaneously aiming to prevent the crime from recurring. In this sense, they argue capital punishment is distinctly different from private murder.
Of course, capital punishment and murder may differ in their objectives. However, proponents must also consider that capital punishment is, by its very nature, a deliberate and cold-blooded act carried out by the state. The extreme anxiety and terror experienced by a death row inmate awaiting execution are beyond imagination. They are plunged into despair, knowing when they will die yet having no way to escape it. The officials responsible for carrying out the execution also inevitably suffer psychological distress. The fact that they must end another person’s life with their own hands acts as a significant psychological burden, and the stress they feel is inevitably immense. From this perspective, it is possible to criticize that the death penalty is not fundamentally different from personal murder. Ultimately, state punishment should aim to realize justice and have the purpose of reforming criminals or preventing recidivism. The death penalty, however, is a form of punishment that inflicts excessive psychological suffering on too many people to achieve these goals.
Proponents of the death penalty also cite cost as a major reason. They argue that executing death-row inmates is necessary to conserve social resources, as the cost of keeping them incarcerated for life is enormous. If a death-row inmate is sentenced to life imprisonment, the government must support their livelihood until their death. The costs for food and lodging in prison, the operation of correctional facilities, and all expenses related to medical services within prisons are ultimately covered by taxes. In contrast, they argue that executing the death penalty can reduce these costs, particularly the expenses incurred by keeping serious criminals in prison for extended periods.
However, considering the death penalty solely from an economic perspective can be ethically problematic. The logic of killing people for money contradicts the fundamental purpose of capital punishment. Punishment meted out to criminals should not be aimed purely at economic gain; it must serve to uphold justice and maintain social stability. Arguments defending capital punishment from an economic standpoint ultimately amount to nothing less than reducing human life to monetary value, disregarding the dignity of life itself. Human life is a precious value that cannot be measured by economic logic, and implementing the death penalty for economic reasons inevitably invites criticism for conflicting with social conscience.
Proponents of the death penalty also point to the fear that criminals who commit serious crimes will remain in society. They argue that the death penalty is the only way to fundamentally prevent recidivism, believing certain criminals are beyond rehabilitation. In such cases, they see the death penalty as necessary to permanently eliminate these criminals and block their potential return to society. This, they contend, provides comfort to victims’ families and offers stability to society as a whole by preventing the recurrence of crime.
Conclusion
The debate over the death penalty remains a fiercely contested social issue. Whether South Korea resumes executions or abolishes the death penalty entirely, this debate is likely to persist indefinitely. While courts still impose death sentences for serious crimes, actual executions have not been carried out for a long time. Consequently, South Korea is classified as a de facto abolitionist country.
Nevertheless, the debate surrounding capital punishment retains its intensity. Particularly whenever a heinous crime occurs, calls to reinstate the death penalty grow louder. However, I believe the state’s true responsibility is not merely to exact retribution on murderers, but to implement preventive measures ensuring such tragic crimes never occur again for the victims’ families and the public.
Brutal crimes undoubtedly shock society and leave victims and their families with irreparable wounds. Nevertheless, the death penalty is not a fundamental solution to these problems. Once carried out, the death penalty is an irreversible punishment. If the verdict was a miscarriage of justice, the result is irreversible, leaving only the tragedy of an unjustly taken life.
Moreover, the death penalty deprives criminals of even the opportunity to reflect on their crimes and reform. I believe every human being should have the chance to recognize their mistakes and start anew. The death penalty completely eliminates the opportunity for a criminal to reflect on their crimes, atone for them, and live a righteous life again. This is deeply inhumane, as it denies the chance for reflection and repentance, and I consider it a punishment that violates human dignity. Even criminals deserve some degree of guaranteed human rights, and the possibility of rehabilitation to reintegrate as members of society must be preserved.
Finally, numerous cases demonstrate that capital punishment not only leads to another form of murder but also has little actual crime-deterrent effect relative to its cruelty. Executing someone offers no guarantee that similar crimes will not recur. Rather, by legitimizing murder as legal, the death penalty can further highlight societal contradictions and problems. Consequently, I believe the death penalty system has no reason to continue, given its negligible practical effect on crime prevention.
Ultimately, the death penalty should be abolished because it violates the human right to life and has little effect on crime prevention. The state’s role is not to exact revenge for heinous crimes through executions, but to develop more systematic and humane ways to prevent crime and provide healing for victims’ families. Justice can be fully realized and crime recurrence prevented through means other than the death penalty.
