[The Editors' Verdict] A Nation Protecting the Identities of Violent Criminals

Only 0.09% of Specific Violent Crime Suspects Have Their Identities Disclosed
Identity Disclosure Proceeds Reluctantly, Driven by Public Attention

The individuals in the police-released identification photos?Lee Gyeong-woo, Hwang Dae-hwan, and Yeon Ji-ho?looked like ordinary neighborhood youths. Lee Gyeong-woo, the main perpetrator of the Gangnam contract kidnapping and murder, appeared as a white-collar worker with a neatly parted hairstyle and a tie with a business suit. However, the real-life appearances of these individuals standing at the photo line during their transfer to the prosecution four days later were completely different from their photos.

They are not the only ones. Suspects whose photos are released by the police and prosecution upon arrest for violent crimes invariably look like ‘different people’ in real life. The neat appearance and slight smile in ID photos dilute the image of violent criminals. Because of this, when Lee Gyeong-woo and his accomplices were brought to the police, a debate arose again over whether mugshots should be released. Since 2003, when the police changed internal regulations to keep identities confidential in the name of protecting the human rights of violent crime suspects, this controversy has repeatedly surfaced every time a heinous criminal is caught over the past 20 years.

Although related laws were relaxed in 2010 to allow limited disclosure of identities, the police remain reluctant. The subjects of identity disclosure are limited to specific violent crimes such as murder, human trafficking, robbery, and sexual assault under the Specific Violent Crimes Act. From 2018 to August last year, among suspects arrested for these crimes domestically, only 0.09% had their identities disclosed. The Gangnam kidnapping and murder perpetrators fall within this percentage. During this period, 28,822 cases of specific violent crimes occurred, but the police held identity disclosure review committees for only 49 cases, nearly half of which were dismissed, resulting in only 28 final disclosures.

Since 2010, all suspects whose identities have been disclosed were either murderers or juvenile sex offenders. No other violent criminals have had their identities revealed. South Korea has now become a ‘state protecting the identities of violent criminals,’ where unless one kills someone or sexually exploits minors, even the most heinous crimes are shielded by investigative agencies hiding the perpetrator’s face.

The Identity Disclosure Committee convenes only when a shocking incident occurs. Investigative agencies are reluctant to disclose the identities of criminals who do not attract public attention. Early last month, the Incheon Police Agency apprehended one of the two perpetrators of a taxi robbery and murder case from 2007 after 16 years and held an identity disclosure committee, but the conclusion was non-disclosure. The reason given was “fairness with the accomplice who was arrested two months earlier (whose identity was not disclosed at the time).” There were remarks that the identity disclosure committee acted like the suspect’s defense attorney, but since the case had long been forgotten by the public, this non-disclosure was reported in a single line by local media and then passed over.

In South Korea, the more comments an online article about a case receives, the more likely the suspect’s identity will be disclosed. This is the result of an analysis published by the Police University’s Institute of Police Policy Studies. Identity disclosure that gauges ‘public interest’ rather than the severity of the crime is no different from ‘police investigative publicity marketing.’ If the Gangnam contract kidnapping and murder perpetrators read this paper, they might consider themselves the ‘unlucky 0.09%’ whose faces were exposed due to media coverage. Under these circumstances, identity disclosure cannot have effects such as preventing recidivism.

The police should not reluctantly disclose the identities of violent criminals only when pressured but should proactively and consistently proceed when it serves the public interest. At the same time, the government must explicitly stipulate the regulations for identity disclosure, currently tucked away in internal police guidelines, into law. It is essential to clarify the scope and responsibility of investigative agencies’ authority to disclose identities to prevent human rights violations of suspects.

Lee Dong-hyeok, Head of Social Affairs Department

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