This blog post takes a deep look at whether the death penalty is an effective system for preventing crime or a system that violates human dignity.
In Korea, the death penalty has a long history, so ancient that its origins are difficult to trace. It is a deeply rooted system, having been implemented even before the nation took its present form. However, its problems began to be highlighted socially when the death penalty was used as a tool for Japanese colonial rule during the Japanese occupation period. At that time, Japan ruthlessly executed independence activists, revealing how powerless and innocent citizens could suffer unjustly at the hands of state law enforcement. As a result, numerous patriots were sacrificed, including Yu Gwan-sun, a martyr of the March First Independence Movement; Lee In-yeong, the commander-in-chief of the 13 Provinces Righteous Army who was arrested for his activities in the late Joseon Dynasty; Kang Woo-gyu, a martyr who threw a bomb at Governor-General Saitō; Heo Wi, a military strategist; and Lee Kang-nyeon, the commander of the Hoseo Righteous Army. Consequently, the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea explicitly abolished the death penalty in Article 9 of its constitution to prevent its abuse.
Even after the Japanese colonial period, the scope of capital punishment expanded further in Korea with the enactment of new laws such as the National Security Act of 1960, the Anti-Communist Act and the Act on the Punishment of Violent Acts of 1961, and the Special Act on the Suppression of Health Crimes. Military regimes, in particular, exploited these laws to suppress opposition forces, executing democracy activists, students, and citizens who participated in protests without due process. However, following the collapse of military rule and the establishment of democracy in the 1990s, no executions have been carried out in South Korea since 1998.
Recently in South Korea, public opinion calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty has grown due to the occurrence of various heinous crimes. People seem to view the death penalty as a tool of justice that avenges victims by punishing violent criminals. However, the likelihood of the death penalty being reinstated and actually carried out in South Korea is very low due to the numerous problems that would arise if it were resumed. Furthermore, I also believe the death penalty should be abolished, and my reasons are as follows.
First, Article 10 of the Korean Constitution states: “All citizens shall have the dignity and value of a human being and the right to pursue happiness. The state shall recognize the inviolable fundamental human rights possessed by individuals and shall have the duty to guarantee them.” Constitutions of many countries contain similar provisions. That is, it is clear that human life is dignified and precious, and that individuals have the right not to have it taken away by others. The death penalty is a system that infringes upon this fundamental right to life, posing a significant obstacle to maintaining human dignity. Recent public opinion argues that since murderers violate another person’s right to life, the principle of ‘an eye for an eye’ justifies depriving murderers of their own right to life. However, murderers are also human beings. Disregarding their dignity ultimately undermines the dignity of humanity as a whole. Moreover, frequent executions risk fostering a culture that devalues life.
Second, the death penalty should be abolished because it is incompatible with the rehabilitative purpose of punishment that criminal law aims to achieve. Executing a criminal makes rehabilitation impossible, making it a punishment contrary to the spirit of criminal law. This judgment is more punitive in nature than educational.
Furthermore, sentencing criminals eligible for the death penalty to life imprisonment permanently isolates them from society, eliminating the need to take their lives. Third, even from a deterrent perspective, the preventive effect of the death penalty is minimal. Most criminals sentenced to death are mentally unstable or choose suicide after committing their crimes.
That is, criminals committing capital offenses are often too consumed by fear and terror during the act to fully comprehend that their actions warrant the death penalty. This is especially true for those who are mentally unstable or who commit crimes impulsively. Even those who commit premeditated murder often act without serious consideration of the death penalty as a punishment. Furthermore, the current rise in heinous crimes shows that individuals frequently commit similar offenses despite knowing, through mass media, the punishments meted out to others who committed comparable crimes. This suggests a low deterrent effect of punishment. Therefore, even if the death penalty, the highest punishment under criminal law, exists, its deterrent effect is unlikely to be significant.
Fourth, societal perceptions regarding the abolition of the death penalty are changing. Since the 1990s, as true democracy took root, the problems with the death penalty system, which had been viewed similarly to other punishments, have been pointed out. Although public opinion in Korea still largely favors retaining the death penalty, support for its abolition is steadily increasing. Furthermore, opinion poll results can fluctuate significantly depending on whether heinous crimes occur, potentially reducing their reliability. In the National Assembly, bills such as the ‘Special Act on the Abolition of the Death Penalty’ are being proposed. This bill argues that the death penalty has no deterrent effect, that it is unjust for humans to decide the life of another human being, and that South Korea should join the global trend of abolishing capital punishment.
The Stockholm Declaration, published in 1977, contains an unconditional opposition to the death penalty. One of the conditions for joining the European Union (EU) is that the country must abolish the death penalty. Ban Ki-moon, former UN Secretary-General, also supported a resolution to abolish the death penalty, stating it was “progress towards the ultimate abolition of the death penalty.”
Finally, the death penalty must be abolished due to the possibility of judicial error. Unlike other punishments, the death penalty is irreversible once carried out. If a person is executed based on a wrongful verdict and later proven innocent, it means the state has killed someone through the law, creating a serious problem. To address this, the three-judge system aims to reduce the possibility of errors in verdicts, but the possibility of miscarriages of justice remains, as not all truths may come to light during the trial process. Furthermore, while demands for reinstating the death penalty have grown recently due to various heinous crimes, this can create psychological pressure on judges from public condemnation, making fair rulings difficult. In a judicial system where human emotions intervene, it is hard to guarantee perfectly logical and fair judgments.
A notable example is the Alfred Dreyfus Affair. Alfred Dreyfus, an Alsatian Jewish Frenchman, was arrested in 1894 for treason, accused of providing military secrets to Germany. Although some handwriting analysis suggested his writing differed from that on the classified documents, the investigating headquarters concluded it matched his and sentenced him to life imprisonment. However, during a reinvestigation in 1898, the true culprit was identified, proving his innocence. Yet, the military authorities at the time refused to acknowledge the miscarriage of justice. This case exposed prejudice against Jews and the problem of wrongful convictions. Had the death penalty been carried out, it would have been impossible to hold anyone accountable for judicial murder.
Beyond the reasons above, the death penalty is an inhumane and outdated system that is incompatible with human dignity and must therefore be abolished.
