This blog post examines whether the death penalty actually prevents crime and contributes to social stability, exploring its necessity and the ongoing debate.
Most citizens feel that current South Korean laws are far too lenient. It is clear that the high recidivism rate stems from the failure to impose strict punishments on criminals, resulting in light sentences. Consequently, Korea has even been called a country where criminals thrive, and public anxiety continues to grow amid increasingly harsh social conditions. Against this backdrop, many people believe that executing the most heinous criminals is necessary to eradicate crime at its root.
The death penalty is the most severe punishment for violating criminal law, involving the deprivation of a person’s life, hence it is also called the ‘life sentence’. Recently, the frequent occurrence of particularly heinous sex crimes among various crimes has intensified the debate over the death penalty. However, no executions have been carried out in South Korea since December 30, 1997, leading Amnesty International to classify South Korea as a de facto abolitionist country. Nevertheless, a survey on ‘Reinstating the Death Penalty’ conducted from January 14, 2014, to January 21, 2015, among 5,030 men and women aged 10 to 99 nationwide revealed that 72% supported maintaining the death penalty, and 69% supported carrying out executions.
I believe South Korea should fully implement the death penalty to eliminate social evils and promote societal stability. I will now explain my position in favor of the death penalty based on four grounds.
First, the death penalty is crucial from the perspective of ‘crime prevention’. As the most severe punishment among all penalties, the death penalty possesses a powerful deterrent effect, causing potential criminals to reconsider their actions before committing a crime. According to the survey mentioned above, approximately 73% of respondents believe the death penalty can suppress crime rates. If it is actually enforced, it would instill fear of crime, thereby preventing and deterring crimes before they occur. Those opposed argue there is no evidence proving the death penalty has a deterrent effect, and that the claim that fear of execution prevents crime is merely a correlation. They cite examples like the United States and Canada, explaining that after the death penalty was reinstated in the U.S., homicide rates increased, while in Canada, which abolished capital punishment, the homicide rate per 100,000 people decreased by 44%. However, this judgment is based on only a few specific cases.
According to data submitted by the Korean Ministry of Justice to the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee, during the 10 years after 1998 when no executions were carried out in Korea, homicide crimes increased by an average of 193 cases annually compared to the period before executions were suspended (before 1997), representing a rise of approximately 32%. While 57 death row inmates remain idle despite receiving final death sentences, murder crimes have increased by 30%. Furthermore, the FBI’s Criminal Offender Record Report indicates that 63% of major criminals who turned themselves in did so out of fear of the death penalty. These cases clearly demonstrate the positive deterrent effect the death penalty has on crime, suggesting that crime rates decrease and the likelihood of recidivism is lower when the death penalty exists.
Second, executing violent criminals reduces harm to innocent citizens. By eliminating the seeds of crime, we can make our society safer. However, opponents raise concerns about the possibility of wrongful convictions. They argue that no one can compensate for a death sentence resulting from a miscarriage of justice, and that innocent citizens could be sacrificed. Yet, this possibility is extremely low. Currently, sentencing involves a complex three-tiered judicial process. Judges follow proper procedures to gather evidence and determine the death penalty. Therefore, the possibility of a miscarriage of justice is very low. Even if a miscarriage occurs, this is a risk inherent not only in the death penalty but also in life imprisonment or fines. If we refrain from imposing appropriate punishment on criminals out of fear of a miscarriage of justice, we cannot properly punish any crime.
Had criminals like Yoo Young-chul or Kang Ho-soon received severe sentences commensurate with their crimes before accumulating 11 and 7 prior convictions respectively, more harm could have been prevented than the damage caused by a single wrongful conviction. Furthermore, opponents express concern that reinstating the death penalty could lead to the revival of authoritarian regimes. However, unlike past dictatorships, the current South Korean judiciary is not swayed by government power and adheres to democratic principles globally. Therefore, the possibility of a dictatorship’s revival is extremely low. Looking at the example of the United States, the death penalty remains in place, yet there has been no takeover by a dictatorship or occurrence of coups.
Third, I believe it is unfair to protect the lives and human rights of violent criminals equally with those of innocent people. Opponents of the death penalty cite human dignity as the most important reason for their opposition. However, I believe that to be protected as human beings, one must first fulfill their obligations as a human being, and those who fail to do so require corresponding punishment. Opponents argue that executing criminals for immoral acts is no different from murder. This is a mistaken perception. Murderers commit murder not to achieve justice, whereas the death penalty executed in the name of the state is carried out as a just punishment for crime.
Finally, I consider the maintenance of life imprisonment or the non-execution of death sentences, funded by taxpayers’ money, to be a waste of tax revenue. In South Korea, death sentences have been imposed but not carried out since 1998. Consequently, death row inmates are treated as pretrial detainees, receiving the same conditions as regular prisoners. The welfare costs amount to 1.6 million won per death row inmate annually, and these costs increase as the number of death row inmates grows. Consequently, death row inmates who deserve condemnation are living comfortably in prisons at the expense of taxpayers. Therefore, the death penalty must be enforced to prevent the waste of taxpayer money.
Opponents argue that taking a human life for economic reasons makes no sense. However, the substantive reason for enforcing the death penalty is ‘appropriate punishment for grave crimes,’ and proponents only cite economic reasons as a secondary justification. Furthermore, the claim that maintaining the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment is based on examples from the United States. Reports indicate that in South Korea, the cost of executing the death penalty is lower than the cost of not executing it. I believe the cost issue can also be resolved through procedural improvements aimed at reducing litigation costs.
Singapore is a very strict country when it comes to punishing criminals. It mandates the death penalty for murder, illegal weapon use, and possession or trafficking of narcotics above a certain quantity. Consequently, Singapore has an extremely low crime rate, which is widely credited to the strict enforcement of its death penalty system. The author argues that if South Korea were to enforce its death penalty system as strictly as Singapore, it could reduce crime rates and eliminate social evils.
