[Reporter’s Notebook] Before Unmasking the Faces of Sex Crime Perpetrators

“Please take off the mask now. This person is!” MBC’s ‘King of Mask Singer’ is a singing competition program that conceals the identities of its contestants. Thanks to this, viewers focus on the essence of singing. Once the mask is removed, the focus shifts to the contestant’s occupation and appearance.

Recently, social outrage sparked by the ‘Busan Dolleochagi’ incident has been directed at the perpetrator’s face. In this case, the investigative authorities did not apply the charge of rape, which is a crime subject to ‘disclosure of suspect’s identity,’ and thus the identity was not revealed. The suspect’s identity is disclosed only before indictment in cases of sex crimes and certain violent crimes. In response, President Yoon Suk-yeol instructed on the 12th to “promote measures to expand the disclosure of identities of perpetrators of violent crimes against women,” and the Ministry of Justice has begun reviewing this.

The problem is that while individual characteristics such as the perpetrator’s appearance may attract social attention, they cannot serve as a fundamental means to solve the issue of sex crimes. According to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, since the implementation of the identity disclosure system in 2010, the number of crimes subject to this system has actually increased. In the United States, a research report found that it “breaks the rehabilitation will of sex offenders and increases recidivism rates.”

Proper punishment and thorough management of perpetrators are the fundamental solutions. During investigation and trial processes, avoiding prejudices such as “victims should behave in a certain way” and not doubting the victim’s testimony can prevent secondary victimization and ensure severe sentences for perpetrators. Even now, there is a system where, upon a guilty verdict and an order for disclosure in court, the perpetrator’s identity is made public through the ‘Sex Offender Notification’ system.

The government must organize a perpetrator management and supervision system to support victims in regaining safe daily lives. Prosecutors pointed out to the perpetrator of the ‘Sindang Station incident,’ where a stalking colleague was killed at the workplace, that “you instilled fear that anyone who lives sincerely trusting the criminal justice system could become the same victim at any time.” Victims of sex crimes such as the distribution of sexual exploitation materials in the Nth Room case and the Burning Sun incident were also unexpectedly exposed to crimes in their daily lives. The repeated cases of perpetrators cutting off electronic anklets and reoffending amid a shortage of management and supervision personnel increase citizens’ anxiety.

The victim of the Dolleochagi incident stated, “Since the (sex crime) evidence was not clearly found, I had no choice but to believe it,” expressing concern about upsetting the investigative authorities. Upon hearing the perpetrator’s vow of retaliation, the victim appealed, “If I am not properly protected, how am I supposed to live?”

The state is the responsible entity for victim protection and perpetrator management. Preventing crimes with photos that are difficult to identify is not the role of citizens. In 2003, the Constitutional Court, in its majority opinion, pointed out that “identity disclosure tends to be used as a display of the subject to the public and is treated merely as a means of crime prevention.” There is a need to focus on more fundamental issues. Repeatedly unmasking perpetrators cannot be a fundamental measure against sex crimes.

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