This blog post examines the death penalty from various perspectives to determine whether it is the best way to achieve justice in South Korea.

 

Introduction

South Korea is a country that does not currently carry out executions. The last time the death penalty was carried out was on December 30, 1997, when 23 prisoners lost their lives. Since then, the death penalty has not been carried out once. As of 2023, South Korea is classified as a de facto abolitionist country. The death penalty still exists, but countries that have not executed a death sentence in more than 10 years or have pledged to not execute the death penalty internationally are considered to have abolished the death penalty. Among them are about 30 countries, including Russia. Meanwhile, the number of countries that continue to execute the death penalty has reached 60, including the United States, China, and Japan, while 12 countries, including Brazil and Chile, have completely abolished the death penalty. As such, opinions on the death penalty system vary from country to country.
However, the discussion of the death penalty resurfaces every time a brutal crime occurs, such as a serial murder case. Each time, there is a debate over the pros and cons of abolishing the death penalty, and I believe that the death penalty should be abolished no matter what crime is committed. Most death sentences in South Korea are for murder, so this article will mainly discuss murder.

 

Why the death penalty is necessary

First, why is the death penalty imposed? The death penalty is the most severe punishment imposed on a felon who has caused great social harm. The purpose is to achieve justice through a punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime, and to provide some comfort to the victim and his or her family. The death penalty is also intended to serve as a warning to society and to send a strong message of deterrence to potential criminals. One of the arguments is that the death penalty serves as an example to deter others from committing the same crime. This is expected to have a deterrent effect.
In particular, brutal crimes such as serial killings, sexual assault, and terrorism have a huge social impact and cause fear and anxiety to many people. By sentencing these crimes to death, society makes it clear that such crimes will not be tolerated again and sends a strong message that criminals will not escape the judgment of the law. This is also considered an important means to resolve the grievances of victims and maintain social justice. However, I believe that these reasons are precisely why the death penalty should be abolished.

 

Position against the death penalty

First, the death penalty 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 grounds. Although the death penalty is the most powerful means of punishing criminals, the impact of this punishment on crime prevention is minimal given the psychology of those who commit crimes. In particular, criminals with extreme tendencies, such as psychopaths or the mentally ill, or those who commit crimes impulsively, are unaware of the existence of the death penalty or do not fear it. They often cannot reasonably judge the legal consequences of their actions, so the death penalty is unlikely to be effective in preventing crime. In fact, the UN has investigated the link between the death penalty and crime on two occasions and has not concluded that the death penalty is effective in deterring crime. Moreover, even though Canada abolished the death penalty for murder in 1976, the number of murders has gradually decreased, and in 1998, the country completely abolished the death penalty for all crimes. This is an important case that supports the claim that the death penalty does not directly contribute to crime prevention.
Second, although the death penalty is a legally permitted punishment, it is problematic in that it is essentially murder by the state. There is no denying that the state’s forced taking of a criminal’s life in the name of the law is ultimately a form of murder. Although the process of executing a criminal and killing a criminal may differ, the pain and fear of death are the same. While condemning the act of a criminal taking another person’s life, it is fundamentally contradictory for the state to end the criminal’s life in the same way. Despite the state’s responsibility to protect the lives of its people, forcibly taking one person’s life through the death penalty is an act that does not fulfill that responsibility. The state’s claim of legitimacy does not change the inhuman and violent nature of the death penalty. In addition, the state has an obligation to protect the right to life, and even if a criminal has committed a serious crime, it is an act that violates human dignity and the right to life for the state to forcibly take that life.
Third, the death penalty system involves the risk of misjudgment. Since the death penalty is dependent on the judgment of a person, it cannot be perfect, and there is always the possibility of misjudgment in that not all judgments made in court can be correct. If an innocent person is sentenced to death due to a miscarriage of justice and the execution takes place, it is tantamount to the state murdering an innocent person. In such a situation, the legitimacy of the death penalty is completely lost, and it can no longer be seen as a legal punishment, but only as a simple act of murder. With a sentence such as life imprisonment, the defendant can be given the opportunity to correct the wrongful judgment through a retrial while he or she is still alive. However, once the death penalty is carried out, even if the sentence is overturned through a retrial, the person who has already lost their life cannot be brought back, so the death penalty is an irreversible punishment. This permanently deprives the opportunity to correct a miscarriage of justice, and as a result, the state may cause even greater tragedy through the harsh punishment of taking a life.
Therefore, the death penalty not only has a negligible effect on crime prevention, but also violates the state’s duty to protect the right to life and can cause irreparable harm due to the possibility of miscarriage of justice. For these reasons, I believe the death penalty should be abolished.

 

Support for the Death Penalty

Supporters of the death penalty argue that there should be a strict distinction between the death penalty imposed by the state and murder committed by individuals. Their argument is that the execution of the death penalty by the state to achieve justice is fundamentally different from murder motivated by an individual’s private desires or emotions. While murder is committed by an individual driven by emotional motives such as anger, jealousy, and revenge, the death penalty is imposed by the state in the process of administering just punishment in accordance with the law. This is to make the criminal pay for his crime by holding him accountable for it in accordance with the law, and at the same time, to prevent the crime from happening again. In this respect, the death penalty is clearly different from an individual murder.
Of course, the death penalty and murder may differ in terms of their purpose. However, the death penalty is essentially an act that is carried out by the state in a planned and cold-blooded manner, so the pros of the death penalty must also be considered to some extent. The extreme anxiety and fear that death row inmates feel before their execution is beyond imagination. They know when they will die, but there is no way to avoid it, which leaves them feeling hopeless. The bureaucrats in charge of carrying out the executions also have to suffer psychological pain. The fact that they have to end the lives of others with their own hands is a huge psychological burden, and the stress they feel must be enormous. In this regard, the death penalty can be criticized for not being much different from personal murder in its nature. After all, the state’s punishment should aim to achieve justice and should be aimed at rehabilitating the criminal or preventing recidivism, and the death penalty is a form of punishment that inflicts psychological pain on too many people to achieve these goals.
Advocates of the death penalty also cite cost as a major reason. They argue that the cost of keeping a criminal on death row for life is so high that the death penalty should be carried out to save social resources. If a criminal sentenced to death is given a life sentence and is kept in prison, the government must support their lives until the end of their lives. All the costs related to the medical services in prisons, the operating costs of correctional facilities, and the costs of eating and sleeping in prisons are ultimately covered by taxes. On the other hand, they say that the death penalty can reduce these costs, especially the costs of keeping serious criminals in prison for a long time.
However, considering the death penalty solely from an economic perspective can be ethically problematic. The logic of killing people for money is not in line with the original purpose of the death penalty. The punishment imposed on criminals should not be for the sole purpose of economic gain, but should be for the realization of justice and the maintenance of social stability. The argument in favor of the death penalty from an economic perspective is ultimately no different from converting a person’s life into a monetary value while disregarding the dignity of life. Human life is a precious value that cannot be judged by economic logic, and the execution of the death penalty for economic reasons is incompatible with social conscience.
Advocates of the death penalty also point to the fear of criminals who have committed serious crimes remaining in society. They argue that the death penalty is the only way to prevent criminals from reoffending, and they believe that certain criminals cannot be reformed. In such cases, they see the death penalty as a means of eliminating the possibility of these criminals returning to society and permanently eliminating them. This can provide comfort to the families of the victims and give a sense of security to society as a whole by preventing the recurrence of crimes.

 

Conclusion

The debate over the death penalty is still a hot social issue. Whether South Korea resumes executions or completely abolishes the death penalty, this debate is likely to continue. Currently, the courts are still handing down death sentences for serious crimes, but the death penalty has not been carried out in practice for a long time. For this reason, South Korea is actually classified as a country that has abolished the death penalty. Nevertheless, the debate over the death penalty is not losing its heat, and every time a particularly brutal crime occurs, there are often calls to revive the death penalty.
However, I believe that what the state should really do is not to simply give the killer the same treatment, but to take preventive measures to ensure that such tragic crimes do not occur again to the families of the victims and the people. Cruel crimes certainly shock society and leave irreparable scars on the victims and their families. Nevertheless, the death penalty is not a fundamental solution to these problems. Once imposed, the death penalty is a punishment that can never be reversed. If the verdict is a wrongful miscarriage of justice, the consequences are irreversible and the only thing that remains is the tragedy of a life unjustly taken.
Moreover, the death penalty deprives criminals of the opportunity to reflect on and reform their crimes. I believe that every human being should have the opportunity to realize their mistakes and start over. The death penalty completely eliminates the opportunity for criminals to reflect on their sins, atone for them, and live a righteous life again. This is a very inhumane punishment that does not give the offender a chance to reflect and repent for their crimes, and I believe it undermines human dignity. Criminals should be guaranteed certain human rights and be given the possibility of rehabilitation so that they can become members of society again.
Finally, the death penalty not only leads to another form of murder, but also has been proven in many cases to have little effect on crime prevention, despite its cruelty. The execution of the death penalty does not guarantee that the same type of crime will not recur. Rather, the death penalty can further highlight social contradictions and problems as it is justified as legal murder. Therefore, the death penalty system has no reason to be maintained any longer as it has little practical effect on crime prevention.
In the end, I believe that the death penalty should be abolished because it violates the right to life and is not effective in preventing crime. The government should not seek to punish violent crimes by executing death sentences, but should seek to prevent crime in a more systematic and humane way and to provide a way to heal the pain of the families of the victims. Justice can be served and crime can be prevented in other ways besides the death penalty.