By KTimes
The Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Workplace revealed on Sept. 12 the id of Choi Seong-woo, 28, who’s accused of fatally assaulting a resident in a smoking space of an residence advanced in Jungnang District, Seoul, on July 20. Choi, reportedly affected by delusions, believed the sufferer posed a menace to him and his mom.
Ten days earlier, the Seoul Metropolitan Police confirmed that they might not disclose the id of Baek, 37, the suspect within the katana homicide case. Baek is accused of killing a neighbor with a 102-centimeter-long Japanese sword in an residence advanced in Eunpyeong District, Seoul, on July 29.
The police cited Baek’s suspected psychological sickness and the potential for extra hurt to the sufferer’s household as causes for withholding his private info.
The differing selections in these two instances, regardless of each involving brutal murders pushed by delusions, have sparked confusion and controversy.
Each suspects dedicated violent, random murders of neighbors, but the authorities dealt with their private info disclosures very in a different way. This inconsistency has led to rising requires clearer and extra uniform requirements for publicly disclosing suspect identities.
Since January, the Act on Public Disclosure of Private Data of Main Prison Offenders has been in power, an extension of a system launched in 2010. This regulation broadened the sorts of crimes that qualify for disclosure, including offenses like arson and drug crimes, alongside sexual and violent crimes. It additionally permits authorities to launch mugshots of suspects with out their consent.
Standards for disclosure nonetheless obscure
Nevertheless, consultants argue that the standards for public disclosure stay obscure, even after the authorized revisions.
Underneath the regulation, three circumstances should be met for a disclosure: the crime should be brutal and have prompted severe hurt, there should be enough proof of the suspect’s guilt, and public curiosity should justify the disclosure to make sure the general public’s proper to know and forestall additional offenses.
The issue, they are saying, lies within the subjective interpretation of phrases like “enough proof” and “public curiosity.”
Nam Un-ho, a lawyer representing the household of the sufferer within the katana homicide case, criticized the unclear requirements, saying, “The prevailing ambiguous standards for disclosures had been merely carried over into the brand new system. The rules ought to think about the context of the arrest and the circumstances surrounding the crime.”
He additionally identified the necessity to embrace the views of victims’ households when deciding whether or not to reveal info.
One other problem is the variation in how disclosure evaluate committees are shaped by completely different investigative businesses and areas, resulting in inconsistent selections.
Lee Woong-hyuk, a professor of police research at Konkuk College, mentioned, “Every investigative physique, whether or not police or prosecution, has its personal evaluate committee, and the elements they prioritize when deciding on a disclosure can differ.”
Jang Younger-soo, a professor at Korea College’s Faculty of Regulation, urged establishing a national-level unified evaluate committee to make sure constant and truthful selections throughout the nation.
Regardless of the controversy, some consultants advise persistence, because the regulation continues to be comparatively new.
Bae Sang-kyun, a researcher on the Korea Institute of Criminology and Justice, identified the sensible difficulties in forming a single nationwide committee, resembling finances constraints, and emphasised the necessity to refine the system over time to enhance consistency.
This text from the Hankook Ilbo, sister publication of The Korea Occasions, is translated by a generative AI system and edited by The Korea Occasions.