Third Constitutional Review of 'Death Penalty' Amidst Knife Fight Chaos... What Will the Constitutional Court Decide?

Debate Over Death Penalty Reignites After 'Indiscriminate Stabbing' Incident
Majority of 9 Judges Favor Abolition... Likely a Turning Point in Social Perception

As indiscriminate stabbing incidents, including a knife rampage in Sillim-dong, continue to occur, the debate over the abolition or retention of the 'death penalty' is heating up, drawing attention to the Constitutional Court's third ruling on the constitutionality of the death penalty.

On July 14 last year, a public hearing on the constitutional complaint regarding the death penalty was held at the Grand Bench of the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul.

On the 22nd, legal circles inside and outside the judiciary speculated that the Constitutional Court might decide on the constitutionality of the death penalty, which is currently under review, before Chief Justice Yoo Nam-seok retires this November. The Court is currently hearing constitutional complaints regarding Article 41, Clause 1 of the Criminal Act, which classifies the death penalty as a type of punishment, and Article 250, Paragraph 2 (murder of ascendants) of the Criminal Act, which includes the death penalty as a statutory punishment.

The Constitutional Court has already ruled the death penalty constitutional in 1996 and 2010. However, regardless of these rulings, executions have been suspended since December 1997. Since then, public opinion, mainly from religious groups, has formed in favor of abolishing the death penalty. Recently, however, with a surge in indiscriminate stabbing incidents targeting random people, calls to maintain the death penalty have also gained strength.

Opponents of the death penalty argue that the state cannot infringe on human rights to life through punishment, while proponents contend that restricting the right to life is permissible to protect significant public interests such as citizens' right to life, from the perspectives of retributive justice and crime prevention.

Ultimately, whether to retain the death penalty will be decided by the Constitutional Court justices, whose inclinations will inevitably have a significant impact on the outcome. However, given the recent rise in heinous crimes and the nature of constitutional review that must consider social perceptions, it is difficult to predict the result.

Among the nine Constitutional Court justices, a majority mentioned the possibility of abolishing or declaring the death penalty unconstitutional during their confirmation hearings. To conclude unconstitutionality, at least six of the nine justices must issue opinions declaring it unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Yoo stated during his confirmation hearing, "If it is believed that crime prevention can be effectively achieved without the death penalty, it can be replaced with life imprisonment without parole whenever possible." Justice Lee Eun-ae also expressed a stance favoring abolition, saying, "Considering the possibility of errors in judgments regarding the right to life, the grounds for retaining the death penalty are weakening." Justices Moon Hyung-bae and Lee Mi-seon also showed positive attitudes toward abolishing the death penalty.

Justice Lee Young-jin expressed a view that "within a limited scope, there may be grounds for unconstitutionality," while Justice Jung Jung-mi said, "Considering whether the state can take the lives of its citizens, abolition is appropriate, but reflecting on the brutality of cases and the suffering of victims experienced during trials, I tend to lean toward retention." Justice Kim Ki-young gave a reserved opinion, stating, "I have not reached a definite conclusion," and Justice Lee Jong-seok said, "Public sentiment is also an important consideration in abolishing the death penalty." There were no questions related to the death penalty during Justice Kim Hyung-doo's confirmation hearing.

Meanwhile, regardless of the retention of the death penalty, the Ministry of Justice is currently soliciting public comments on a bill to amend the Criminal Act to introduce life imprisonment without parole by the 25th of next month. Life imprisonment without parole (absolute life sentence), which does not allow parole, has been discussed and reviewed for a long time alongside the death penalty in Korean society and has been adopted in several advanced countries, including the United States.

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