In this blog post, we explore how to reconcile the crime prevention effects of capital punishment with the value of human dignity.
I oppose capital punishment. Most sex offenders or murderers commit crimes in a state of passion or mental illness. Other countries view child sex offenders not merely as criminals but as mentally ill patients, implementing long-term treatment and rehabilitation programs for them. Beyond innate malignancy, significant social and environmental factors contribute to the development of such mental disorders. Childhood experiences of alienation, abuse, and trauma from crime can trigger these psychological issues. Society must strive to improve such environments through welfare measures, yet society also bears responsibility for creating these conditions. Furthermore, while some sex offenders may have reached a psychologically pathological state due to experiencing sexual abuse in childhood, society failed to prevent such crimes.
Therefore, when assigning responsibility for heinous crimes, while the primary responsibility undoubtedly lies with the criminal, the social environment that prevented rational thought cannot be entirely absolved of blame. However, the death penalty shifts all responsibility solely onto the criminal.
Moreover, if many violent criminals suffer from mental illness, long-term treatment and rehabilitation programs, as practiced in other countries, can treat the illness, restore rational thinking, and reduce the likelihood of reoffending. A key argument for the death penalty is that it permanently removes criminals from society by taking their lives, eliminating the possibility of reoffending. Yet humans are beings capable of reform. If a crime was committed in a pathological state, and that illness can be treated and improved, there is no need to choose extreme measures. Punishments other than the death penalty are explicitly stated to aim not only at preventing recidivism but also at reforming, rehabilitating, and resocializing the offender. However, the death penalty, as a method intended to completely block the possibility of recidivism, does not align with the fundamental ideals of punishment, which are reform and correction. Particularly for crimes arising from a pathological state, where the potential for reform is high, it is more desirable to preserve the possibility of reform and rehabilitation.
While punishment was once viewed as retribution for crime, expressing anger solely through a retributive mindset offers no help for the reform of the offender or the relief of the victim. Executing an offender based on the emotions of the moment may provide retributive satisfaction to the victim, but it is unrelated to the victim’s relief. Therefore, it is reasonable to view punishment from the perspective of reform and rehabilitation rather than retribution, and to provide opportunities for reform to those with high potential for improvement.
Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea explicitly guarantees that all citizens possess human dignity and value and have the right to pursue happiness. The state has the duty to recognize and guarantee the inviolable fundamental human rights of individuals and thus cannot possess the right to deprive a person of their life. However, the death penalty is an act that violates this human dignity. No one can arbitrarily take another’s life or treat them harshly. When its citizens are kidnapped during international conflicts, a state will sometimes endure great losses to rescue them. Even when a stealth fighter malfunctions, if the pilot’s life is in danger, abandoning the aircraft to save the pilot is not condemned. This is because human life is more precious and dignified than anything else. Human dignity is an indispensable value for the very existence of society, and protecting it is the purpose of law. Yet the death penalty disregards this.
As a liberal democracy, our nation prioritizes human rights and human life above all else, prohibiting their arbitrary deprivation. However, by taking a criminal’s life, the death penalty demonstrates a disregard for the absolute sanctity of human life. This amounts to the state, which should protect life through law, fostering a culture that devalues life. Even if the crimes committed by a criminal are heinous, witnessing the easy taking of his life can spread the perception that ‘violent criminals deserve to die’. This can erode the recognition that human life is precious, and depriving a criminal of his life through the death penalty, which disregards human dignity, cannot be justified.
Furthermore, executioners themselves are essentially committing murder under the state’s command in the name of “justice.” Even under state orders, those who carry out murder for the purpose of punishing criminals can never be justified. In reality, many executioners experience pangs of conscience, and their memoirs reveal the torment inflicted by carrying out executions. This can also harm innocent people.
When a crime occurs, determining punishment is the responsibility of humans. However, humans are not gods, and mistakes can occur in the process of determining guilt or innocence. The possibility of wrongful conviction always exists due to reasons like insufficient evidence or inadequate defense, and once the death penalty is carried out, there is no way to reverse it if a miscarriage of justice is later revealed. Given that the death penalty deprives a person of their life, the situation where someone loses their life unjustly due to a miscarriage of justice is an incomparable tragedy.
The death penalty is adopted in some countries due to its perceived deterrent effect. While this stems from the expectation that fear of punishment will reduce the likelihood of crime, a comparison of serious crime rates between regions that have abolished the death penalty and those that have not shows that its deterrent effect has not been clearly proven. According to a UN study, Canada showed a steady decline in its homicide rate after abolishing the death penalty. South Korea has also not carried out executions for a long time, yet heinous crimes like child sex offenses continue unabated. The general deterrent effect provided by the death penalty is not significantly different from that of life imprisonment, meaning maintaining the death penalty offers no major advantage.
In a society where crimes large and small persist, people may emotionally feel the death penalty is necessary, especially when heinous crimes like child sexual abuse or serial killings occur. However, logically speaking, the necessity of the death penalty is not that great. South Korea ended its dictatorship and is achieving national harmony by reducing the wealth gap through gender equality in employment, labor-management coexistence, and welfare systems. Furthermore, public consciousness is shifting as respect for life grows and more victims seek clemency for death row inmates. Internationally, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights emphasize abolishing capital punishment. Considering these trends, it is now time to abolish the death penalty.
