[In-Depth Review] Managing Delinquents Left in Blind Spots Amid Controversies Over Human Rights Protection for Crime Suspects

Professor Kim Do-woo, Department of Police Science, Gyeongnam National University

A horrific incident occurred in which Kang Mo, a repeat offender with 14 prior convictions, murdered two innocent women just three months after his release. Notably, Kang Mo killed one woman at his home while wearing an electronic ankle bracelet, then cut it off and fled. Two days later, another victim was found, leading to widespread criticism of the Ministry of Justice and police for failing to prevent this. In response, the Ministry of Justice proposed measures such as manufacturing electronic ankle bracelets from more durable materials to prevent tampering and expanding the scope of shared information by jointly monitoring location data with the police.

However, these measures do not address the root problems. Institutional issues such as a shortage of specialized monitoring personnel and inadequate information-sharing systems among related agencies also exist. The most fundamental problem is that the current electronic monitoring system can track the location of those wearing ankle bracelets but cannot prevent their actions. This limitation is not confined to electronic ankle bracelets but is also evident in various crime prevention measures currently in place. Existing laws aimed at preventing violent crimes include electronic monitoring (introduced in 2008), public disclosure of offenders’ personal information (introduced in 2001), and police management of high-risk individuals.

Crime prevention measures often face debates over their effectiveness whenever serious incidents provoke public outrage, but improvements remain limited due to concerns over infringing on suspects’ human rights. For example, the police’s high-risk individual management policy changed the ambiguous term “high-risk individual” and renamed the regulation to “Regulations on Information Collection Concerning Major Violent Crime Offenders Upon Release.” During revisions, the management target was limited to high-risk individuals with two or more prior convictions and a risk of reoffending, specifically those sentenced to imprisonment or higher for murder, arson, abduction/kidnapping; those sentenced three or more times to imprisonment or higher for robbery, theft, or drug-related crimes; and organized crime members sentenced to fines or higher. Furthermore, the purpose of information collection was downgraded from “recidivism prevention and investigative use” to the more passive “prevention and response to risks to public safety.” Limited measures to protect suspects’ human rights also exist in the personal information disclosure system and electronic monitoring system. As a result, crime prevention policies originally intended for proactive prevention have been transformed into passive post-event measures that minimize human rights infringements on suspects.

Unlike South Korea, advanced countries prioritize preventing crime itself and protecting the rights of citizens to live safely over the human rights of offenders. In most U.S. states, sex offenders are required to wear electronic devices for life after release. Moreover, Georgia mandates lifetime electronic monitoring for individuals deemed sexually dangerous regardless of recidivism risk. Some states have added features that alert nearby residents when an electronic monitoring wearer enters a certain radius, serving as a strong preventive measure. Even the United Kingdom, which does not use location tracking, strictly confines electronic ankle bracelet wearers to their homes and has a dedicated tracking team ready to respond immediately if they leave.

Of course, protecting the human rights of suspects is an important value that criminal justice institutions must uphold. However, such human rights concerns can be supplemented by other institutional safeguards that protect constitutional values. To prevent recidivism by electronic ankle bracelet wearers like Kang Mo, proactive and effective high-risk offender management policies prioritizing public safety are required, even if they may involve some infringement on suspects’ human rights.

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