"Such Psychos Must Be Punished"...YouTubers Acting as Problem Solvers with 'Revenge' Content

Popularity of 'Private Retribution' Content on YouTube and Websites
Publishing Suspect Letters or Establishing 'Personal Information Exposure' Sites
"Has Positive Functions" vs "Nothing but Witch Hunts" - Citizens Divided
Experts: "Due to Widespread Distrust in Judiciary... Trust Must Be Restored"

Part of the so-called 'Jung In case' suspect Jang Mo (35)'s 'prison letter,' revealed by a YouTuber during a live streaming broadcast on the 9th. / Photo by YouTube capture

[Asia Economy Reporter Lim Juhyung] "You have done a great job.", "No remorse after killing your daughter. It's truly chilling.", "Such a psycho deserves punishment."

On the 9th, YouTuber A revealed in a live streaming broadcast a 'prison letter' sent by Jang Mo (35), the adoptive mother who abused and caused the death of 16-month-old Jeongin, to her husband. Netizens expressed outrage over the letter, which contained no signs of remorse but rather mentioned the daughter's English education and affection for her husband, and praised the YouTuber for making it public.

More netizens are stepping up as 'avengers' on behalf of public authority against heinous criminals. They focus on creating so-called 'revenge content' by publicly disclosing personal information of socially condemned criminals or secretly tracking them. Public opinion on these individuals is divided. Some argue that netizens who can directly punish criminals are socially useful, especially given the slow and ineffective law enforcement, while others worry that criminal trials, which are the judiciary's domain, should not be substituted by ordinary citizens.

A, who disclosed Jang's 'prison letter,' was sued on the 10th, a day later, by Jang's side on charges including trespassing and invasion of privacy.

On the morning of the 14th, citizens in front of the Seoul Southern District Court in Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, held signs demanding severe punishment for the adoptive parents accused of abusing and causing the death of Jeong-in. / Photo by Yonhap News

A is accused of taking out a letter sent by Jang from a mailbox at a church in Andong, Gyeongbuk, where Jeongin's grandfather resides, on the 7th, filming it, and then putting it back. On the 9th, during a live broadcast, A revealed the footage and stated, "I will accept punishment," effectively admitting to the illegal act.

This is not the first time netizens have acted as private enforcers despite illegality. At the end of last year, some YouTubers damaged a police escort vehicle during the release of child sex offender Jo Doo-soon (68) and were investigated by the police.

A so-called 'personal information exposure' website was also established, where the identities of suspects were investigated and published online. For example, the 'Digital Prison' created last year operated by posting photos, home addresses, workplaces, and phone numbers of presumed sex offenders.

However, the Digital Prison was eventually shut down after controversies arose, including a university student wrongly accused as a sex offender who was found dead at home while asserting innocence in July last year, and the registration and subsequent deletion of information about a namesake unrelated to sex crimes in August.

Introduction section of the 'Digital Prison' website. / Photo by Digital Prison capture

Amid these circumstances, public opinion on 'digital private punishment' is divided. Some argue that in a context where lenient punishments for heinous crimes are continuously criticized, such netizen-led punishment is a 'necessary evil,' while others counter that ordinary citizens' involvement in criminal punishment could cause greater confusion and harm.

A company employee in their 20s said, "Even looking at digital sex crimes like the 'Nth Room case,' there has been endless controversy over lenient punishments. Not only victims but also citizens' frustrations have reached their limit," adding, "If the state had properly investigated and imposed appropriate punishments from the start, private punishment would not have arisen."

A 25-year-old university student B recalled, "When child rapist Jo Doo-soon was released, I felt thrilled watching YouTube videos mocking him," and argued, "There are obviously side effects and it is right to be cautious, but I believe these YouTubers also have positive functions."

On the other hand, criticism arose that private punishment only creates more victims. A 32-year-old office worker C said, "When ordinary people take it upon themselves to punish presumed criminals, at best, it amounts to a witch hunt," adding, "Look at the Digital Prison case?how many false pieces of information were there? It’s terrifying to think if my family or friends became victims of such punishment."

Experts advise that widespread distrust in the judiciary has fueled demand for digital private punishment content and that, in the long term, the judiciary must restore public trust.

Professor Oh Yoon-sung of Soonchunhyang University’s Department of Police Administration explained, "From the past 'Nth Room case' to controversies over Jo Doo-soon’s release, domestic criminal cases have often shown insufficient victim protection, leading to widespread public distrust in the judiciary," adding, "Recent private punishment YouTubers have gained rapid popularity by understanding and satisfying this public sentiment."

He continued, "Distrust in the judiciary and procedures worsens easily, but restoring trust takes a long time," and suggested, "The judiciary and investigative authorities need to pay more attention to victim protection."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.