"Punishment Must Not Violate Right to Life" vs "Right to Life Can Be Restricted for Significant Public Interest"

Constitutional Court Holds 4.5-Hour Public Hearing on Death Penalty... Debate Over Retention

Chief Justice Yoo Nam-seok of the Constitutional Court and other constitutional justices are waiting for the start of the public hearing on the constitutional complaint case regarding the 'death penalty' part of Article 41, Paragraph 1 and Article 250, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Act, held on the afternoon of the 14th at the Grand Bench of the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul. [Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Constitutional Court, currently conducting its third constitutional review of the death penalty system, held a public hearing on the 14th. The petitioners arguing that the death penalty is unconstitutional claimed, "The state cannot infringe on human rights to life through punishment," while the respondents countered, "Punishment is imposed to protect significant public interests, and from the perspective of retributive justice and general crime prevention, restricting the right to life is possible."

On the same day at 2 p.m., the Constitutional Court held a public hearing in the grand courtroom regarding the constitutional complaint filed by Mr. A, who was detained and indicted on charges including parricide and forcible molestation, challenging Article 41, Clause 1 of the Criminal Act, which stipulates the death penalty as a type of punishment, and Article 250, Paragraph 2 (parricide) of the Criminal Act, which includes the death penalty as a statutory punishment.

During the public hearing, after statements from the attorney representing Mr. A and the Korea Legal Aid Corporation representing the Minister of Justice, who is an interested party in the case, witnesses recommended by both sides argued respectively for the abolition and the necessity of retaining the death penalty.

The petitioners' representative stated, "Life and death are phenomena bestowed by nature beyond any system, and we must examine whether the state can intervene," emphasizing, "Life is a fundamental premise given to humans before the state, and the idea that the state can arbitrarily infringe on the right to life is an outdated notion."

He continued, "The right to life is a right prior to the state and holds dignity as a human being, not merely as a citizen," adding, "The burden of proof for maintaining the death penalty lies with the state. The death penalty completely abandons the special preventive function from the start and excludes rehabilitation and reform by depriving the life of the criminal."

On the other hand, the respondents' representative argued, "There are claims that life imprisonment without parole should replace the death penalty, but considering human survival instincts and the fundamental fear of death, it cannot substitute the deterrent effect of the death penalty," and insisted, "The legislation of the death penalty should be respected as a means to permanently isolate particularly heinous social evils."

He further stated, "In fact, in the UK, after the abolition of the death penalty in 1965, the number of murders over the following 20 years increased by 60% compared to the 20 years before abolition," and argued, "The possibility of wrongful convictions is cited as a reason for abolition, but this is not a problem with the death penalty itself but an inherent limitation of the judicial system. This should be addressed through improvements in related systems, and the private harm infringed by the death penalty is punishment for those who commit heinous crimes, which cannot be considered inferior to public interest."

Petitioner witness Professor Heo Wan-jung of Chonnam National University Law School pointed out, "Regarding the deterrent effect of the death penalty, our Constitution, under Article 10, assigns the duty to confirm and guarantee the basic rights of citizens," and added, "If the state restricts basic rights, it bears the burden of proof according to Article 37, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, and the restriction must be a constitutionally justified limitation; if it cannot be proven, it is not a restriction but an infringement."

Respondent witness Professor Jang Young-soo of Korea University Law School stated, "The deterrent effect should be considered not only for criminals but also for preventing ordinary citizens from even thinking about committing crimes," and questioned, "If extreme crimes continue to occur and punishment is abolished, wouldn't that mean considering only the human rights of criminals and neglecting the human rights of ordinary citizens?"

Previously, the Constitutional Court ruled constitutional on Article 41, Clause 1 of the Criminal Act, which stipulates the death penalty as a type of punishment, and Article 250 of the Criminal Act (murder), which includes the death penalty as a statutory punishment, with a 7-2 decision in 1996 and a 5-4 decision in 2010.

For the Constitutional Court to declare a law unconstitutional, at least six of the nine justices must agree. Among the current justices, five have expressed positions favoring the abolition or active consideration of abolishing the death penalty, including Chief Justice Yoo Nam-seok and Justices Lee Seok-tae, Lee Eun-ae, Moon Hyung-bae, and Lee Mi-seon.

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