What’s the Use of Closing the Barn Door After the Cow Is Lost... Victim Protection Comes First

[That Guy's Voice] Stalking Punishment Law Lacks Effective Prevention

More than Two Months Since Enforcement
Only Fines Imposed for Violations
Insufficient Crime Prevention Effect

Stalking Protection Law Proposed
Must Pass Through National Assembly

Photo by Pixabay

[Asia Economy Reporters Byungdon Yoo, Donghoon Jung] The Stalking Punishment Act was first proposed in 1999 and took a full 22 years to be enacted. Although more than two months have passed since its implementation, there are still criticisms that it is insufficient as an effective preventive and punitive measure.

Under the Stalking Punishment Act, the police can take urgent emergency measures to protect victims, such as prohibiting approach within 100 meters and banning phone calls. However, even if these measures are violated, only a fine of up to 10 million won is imposed, leading to concerns about the law’s limited crime prevention effect. This stems from the National Assembly passing the Stalking Punishment Act first and deciding to legislate victim protection measures subsequently. Although the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family announced the legislative proposal for the “Act on Prevention of Stalking and Protection of Victims (Stalking Protection Act)” on the 11th of last month, it still has to pass the hurdle of the National Assembly.

Since it is a bill, it must go through opinion-gathering procedures such as public hearings in the National Assembly, and pass through the standing committee, the judiciary committee, and the plenary session. A representative from the women’s community said, “The regular session has already ended, so it must be handled in a special session, but it is uncertain whether the National Assembly will function properly amid the presidential election atmosphere.”

Another issue is that the law defines stalking as a “quasi-offense requiring the victim’s consent for prosecution,” meaning that if the victim does not want the perpetrator punished, prosecution cannot proceed. This allows perpetrators to approach victims under the pretext of settlement, and if criminal punishment is not applied under this provision, the effectiveness of the Stalking Punishment Act itself is nullified.

Testimonies from stalking victims also support this reality. According to a research report submitted to the National Assembly by Professor Sujeong Lee’s research team at Kyonggi University, a survey of 256 stalking victims showed that 206 (80.5%) did not seek help from the police. When asked whether police reports were effective in stopping stalking behavior, 30.5% responded “yes,” while 69.5% said “no.” Among those who reported stalking, only 19.4% expressed satisfaction with police measures. The most common reason for dissatisfaction was that “there were few actions the police could take to restrain the perpetrator’s behavior.”

Authorities also acknowledge the limitations of the current Stalking Punishment Act. Regarding the brutal murder of a family member of a “personal protection woman” in Songpa-gu, Seoul, Police Commissioner General Changryong Kim said, “Since the enactment of the Stalking Punishment Act, related reports have surged more than fourfold, greatly increasing the security burden, but we have no choice but to respond with the same personnel and organization.” This means that fundamentally, the budget, manpower, and legal system necessary for the personal protection system are insufficient.

Currently, five amendment bills to the Stalking Punishment Act, including the deletion of the quasi-offense provision and the introduction of victim protection orders and personal safety measures, have been proposed in the National Assembly, but it is uncertain when they will pass the plenary session. Seunghyeon Seung, a research fellow at the Korea Institute of Criminal Justice Policy, said, “Punishment of perpetrators and protection of victims are separate areas. Even if perpetrators cannot be punished, victims must be actively protected under the assumption that they are still exposed to existing and clear dangers.”

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