The trigger for the 'execution' resurfaces
South Korea has not carried out a single execution since December 30, 1997, when it executed its last 23 death row inmates. The international community effectively classifies South Korea as a "de facto abolitionist country." Yet, whenever a brutal, heinous crime—a brutal, indiscriminate stabbing rampage, a planned serial murder, a brutal child sex crime—occurs, suffocating peaceful daily life, the nation's suppressed anger erupts like a volcano. Public opinion overwhelmingly rages on petitions to the Blue House and on comment sections of media articles, demanding, "Rather than feeding these monsters with taxpayer money, execute them immediately!"
The death penalty goes beyond simply a question of how to punish criminals. It poses one of humanity's oldest and most weighty philosophical conundrums, questioning whether the immense power of the state has the right to legally deprive an individual of his or her life. At this juncture, where the authority of the state to enforce criminal law and the most fundamental human right to life guaranteed by the Constitution clash head-on, what kind of logic can our intellectual debaters on the GOLA platform offer? Let's set aside our emotional anger and examine the core arguments of both sides, those advocating for the retention (maintenance and enforcement) and those for its abolition.
Why is the death penalty absolutely necessary? (Argument for preservation and execution)
1. Realization of justice: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth
Those who vehemently advocate for the preservation of the death penalty are driven by the philosophy of "retributive justice." Those who intentionally and cruelly take the precious life of another should pay the heaviest price for their crime—their own life. This is a universal human legal sentiment, dating back to the ancient Code of Hammurabi. It's a powerful appeal that the bereaved families of those brutally murdered must live a life of hellish suffering while the perpetrators live in warm prisons, fed three meals a day by taxpayer money, directly violates social justice.
2. The most powerful deterrent against crime
"The death penalty is the most certain brake on heinous crimes." Supporters of the death penalty argue that the very existence and actual execution of such an extreme punishment instills a tremendous sense of fear in potential criminals, effectively deterring them. If the maximum penalty were only life imprisonment, the logic goes, extreme criminals who don't fear the prospect of a lifetime in prison would have no reason to hesitate to commit murder. For the safety of society as a whole and the protection of the good majority, the death penalty is the ultimate shield that must be maintained.
Even the state has no right to take life (the logic of the abolitionists)
1. Violation of the absolute fundamental human right, the right to life
On the other hand, those who advocate for the abolition of the death penalty argue that human life is not granted by the state or law, but is an "innate human right" that one possesses from birth and cannot be artificially deprived of it for any reason. They argue that if a criminal's murder is a terrible evil, then for the state to commit another murder (execution) in the name of law is also a contradictory and barbaric act. They emphasize that a truly civilized nation should, instead of vengefully killing criminals, adopt a mature approach of permanently isolating them from society (such as life imprisonment without parole) to ensure their safety.
2. Irreversible fatal flaws, the 'possibility of misjudgment'
The most realistic and powerful weapon advocated by abolitionists is mistrial. The human-made judicial system is not perfect. Countless instances of people being falsely accused and sent to death row due to police coercive investigations, false testimony, and fabricated evidence have occurred throughout history, both domestically and internationally. Those sentenced to prison can be released and the state compensates if the true culprit is later caught and proven innocent. However, there is no way to reverse the injustice suffered by a death row inmate who has already lost his life. The logic is that if there is even a 0.1% chance that even a single innocent life will be wrongfully sacrificed by the state, the system must be abolished immediately.
Standing before the endless question of revenge or justice
The debate over the death penalty is so complexly intertwined with emotion and reason, state duty and individual rights, that it's difficult to reach a simple conclusion. Faced with the horrific crimes of heinous criminals, we often feel a surge of anger, demanding immediate execution. But when confronted with the history of innocent people unjustly executed by those in power, a chill runs down our spines, reminding us of the dangers of the system.
Currently, bills are being steadily introduced in the National Assembly to completely abolish the death penalty and replace it with "life imprisonment without parole (absolute life imprisonment)." Is our society truly ready to move beyond anger and realize true justice? To find answers to this weighty question, please share your profound insights in the GOLA discussion forum right now. Through the fierce clash of differing perspectives, we will be able to discover the most humane path our society should take.