Opposition to death penalty speaks

Is the only remedy against heinous crimes against another in this country the enactment of a death sentence? The academia and the legal profession have turned their focus toward finding a replacement for the death penalty in addition to the continued effort for abolishment of the capital punishment.

The Korean Association for the Abolishment of Death Penalty, led by president Lee Sang-Hyuk, J.D., which has sought an "Era of Peace without the Death Sentence," has insisted that should the abolishment of the death penalty prove impossible, a better option would be the sentence of life without possibility parole.

During a seminar sponsored by the association at the Sejong Cultural Center on Monday for the Abolishment of Death Penalty and its Alternative, the possibility of a life sentence without parole came to the forefront of the discussions.

Those at the seminar proposed that life without parole could serve as a stepping stone between the death penalty and a life-term, and even serve as an alternative to the death sentence.

Those seeking to keep the death penalty have pointed out that the current laws allow for the parole of heinous criminals who receive a life-sentence, after 10 years of serving their time and if the parole board decides that the criminal would not engage in such crimes again. As such, the death penalty for such criminals is unavoidable. On the other hand, it is the insistence of the life-without-parole supporters that rather than taking lives, it would be better to place them behind bars an allow them the opportunity to repent on their own of their crimes.

"Although the death sentence is necessary in order to curtail heinous crimes, life without parole would have the same affect to deter such crimes, and it would prevent the death of innocent persons through miscarriage of justice," Professor Gikuda Goichi of Meiji University in Japan said.

Germany abolished the death penalty in 1949 in its constitution, and for the following 30 years levied the highest sentence has been life without parole. Then in 1981, the law was modified to allow the parole of such criminals following 15 years behind bars and after a close examination of the conditions for parole.

Of the 50 states in the United States, while 30 retain the death penalty, they have adopted life without the possibility of parole and with the possibility of parole alongside the death penalty.

"In Japan, there has been greater support in the legal and religious profession for an end to the death penalty through the adoption of life without parole," Goichi said.

However, life without parole is not without its critics. Some have pointed out that such extended deprivation of freedom for the criminals might be more cruel than the death sentence.

Donga University Professor Huh Il-Tae countered that argument.

"There is a very wide gap of life and death between life without parole and the death penalty,¡± Huh said. ¡°As such, life without parole is undoubtedly more humane."

Those in the legal profession are of the view that the success of the enactment of the replacement of the death penalty with life without parole lies in the wider issue of public support for the abolishment of the death penalty.

"The death penalty is a penalty that primarily seeks retribution for the crime, and it violates human dignity and the right to life, as well as being a dangerous policy of the courts, which violates the right to repent," Korea University Professor Shim Jae-Woo said.

Shin Suk-Ho kyle@donga.com