In 1764 an Italian nobleman named Cesare Beccaria published a short treatise entitled “On Crimes and Punishments.” In this text he argued convincingly for the abolition of the death penalty from modern society. 

As we approach the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the publication of this text there is a worldwide movement for the abolition of the death penalty. South Korea has been a part of this movement since 1998 after Kim Dae-jung, a former death row inmate, was inaugurated as president and established a moratorium on executions.

Yet despite the government’s progressive stance, the South Korean courts have continued to hand down death sentences. The latest death sentence was handed down last Friday in the now infamous case of murder and dismemberment of a young woman in Suwon.

For advocates of the death penalty, the Suwon crime is a textbook case where an obviously guilty perpetrator was caught on camera abducting his victim, attempted to dispose of the horrific aftermath of his crime in close proximity to his house, was quickly apprehended and subsequently confessed to the crime. While police ineptitude may have cost the young woman her last chance at rescue, the heinous crime was entirely the fault of the perpetrator and his guilt is as clear as is possible.

However, the court was wrong to sentence the perpetrator to death. The court’s mistake is assuming that the death sentence still has a place in an advanced society. Unfortunately the brevity of court opinions in South Korea means it is not possible to know exactly what motivated the court’s decision.

However, it can be surmised that the court was considering up to three of the four classic reasons behind criminal law; deterrence of others, retribution, rehabilitation of the offender and removal of the offender from society. The court could have only been motivated by three of the four because the death sentence is a penalty where the court is obviously not seeking to rehabilitate the offender.

But none of those three reasons has been shown to uphold the imposition of the death penalty. The death penalty has not been shown to be more effective at deterrence than other forms of punishment and some studies have shown a rise in the murder rate shortly after a well-publicized execution. Similarly, the death penalty is not more effective at removing offenders from society than a life sentence without possibility of parole.

And finally the concept of retribution, which is most likely what motivated the court, is a holdover from more primitive criminal codes that were based on such concepts as an eye for an eye.

Retribution is no longer a valid justification for criminal punishment in an advanced society such as South Korea and it is unfortunate that the South Korean judiciary still cannot seem to grasp this basic concept.

The truth is that violent crime in South Korea, and in any society, occurs for complex reasons and the reduction of violent crime is better achieved by methods that address those reasons. Such methods should include improved training for the South Korean police with a special focus on emergency call response. Other methods could include neighborhood watch programs, improved education of the populace and the overall reduction of poverty with a concomitant increase in economic and social equality. Finally, in modern advanced societies the rehabilitation of offenders should be the primary goal. While the death sentence imposed by the court may convince some that the court is acting strongly to reduce crime, the fact is the death penalty fails to address the root causes of violent crime.

Finally, as is evident to anyone who lives in South Korea, the judiciary is not infallible; it often makes mistakes and frequently reaches conclusions that defy common sense. Allowing the judiciary the continued ability to prescribe the death penalty will inevitably result in an innocent person being killed. By imposing the death sentence in the Suwon case the South Korean judiciary has again demonstrated its lack of advanced morals.

Therefore, the National Assembly must address this judicial shortcoming by amending the South Korean criminal code and placing the death penalty beyond the reach of the judiciary. South Korea must not allow the medieval thinking of the judiciary to cause the nation to regress in the eyes of the world.

By Daniel Fiedler 

Daniel Fiedler is a professor of law at Wonkwang University. He also holds an honorary position as the lawyer representative for international marriages in Namwon, North Jeolla Province. ― Ed.