Prosecutors' Office earns skepticism

Following the inauguration of the current administration, the integrity of the Prosecutor¡¯s Office seems ever-more insecure. Put another way, with the rapid replacements in the key posts, more and more have looked nervously toward the government.

The result has been the loss of neutrality by the Prosecutor¡¯s Office, and as long as the president holds the power to appoint the prosecutor general, the neutrality of the Prosecutor¡¯s Office might never be. Without the president, regardless of which administration, surrendering his power to appoint the prosecutor general and thereby abandoning hold of prosecutors, the Prosecutor¡¯s Office might never be freed from the control of the administration.

The power to appoint the prosecutor general must be held by the Prosecutor¡¯s Office itself with a perfunctory approval by the president.

There is a general consensus that the prosecutors handle well the usual slew of cases. However, they have earned the distrust of the people due to a handful of cases involving politicians. Should the Prosecutor¡¯s Office feel such distrust was unjustified, it would be advisable for them to adopt a policy that opens the records of their investigations for all the people to view.

Korean society has lost its ability for self-cleansing, and the Prosecutor¡¯s Office stands as the lone guard with the possibility of maintaining justice in our society. Having such critical responsibility, the corruption in the Prosecutor¡¯s Office could quash all hope for Korea.

As still water can only become foul, the moral health and bearing must be fostered by a system of checks by the citizen's organizations or other such associations. The first and foremost barrier to such system of check is the exclusivity to indict held by the prosecutors. A system of check offered by the right to request arbitration must be applied to all cases. Permanent establishment of the special prosecution policy also could be considered.

The crisis faced by the Prosecutor¡¯s Office is due to the overall general distrust of the office. Although the reform in the Prosecutors' Office has been much touted following the legal scandals in Uijongbu and Taejon, there have not been any tangible changes. The reform of the Judiciary did not include the reform in the Prosecutor¡¯s Office. The current misfortune of the prosecutors is the fruit of its own actions. Accordingly, the impeachment process must be taken as a warning by the prosecutors.

Furthermore, there is a need for a system of checks of the Prosecutor¡¯s Office through the enactment of such laws as a prosecutor neutrality law.

The recent cycle of criticisms and reinvestigations by the prosecutors have created the cracks in credibility. There have been repeated cases of prosecutors hurriedly reopening their investigations when the news media find faults or more questions. For true reform, more important thing than the question of policy is the very will and integrity of the various chiefs. The very constitution of the Prosecutor¡¯s Office must undergo changes as each individual prosecutor pushes through personal reforms.

For the Prosecutor¡¯s Office to stand upright, those in the key posts must be able to exercise transparent authority independent from other influences. To do so, a personnel committee must be formed. Also, the exclusive authority to indict, and the special prosecution policy must be addressed through greater dialogue and debate.

Today, Korea has witnessed the visible outbreak of the long festering lack of prosecutor impartiality. With many feeling the necessity of a stern action to correct such flaws in the Prosecutor¡¯s Office, the current impeachment proceeding has satisfied the wishes of the people. It is the hope of the people that the prosecutors take the opportunity to look upon themselves. For a renewed and reformed Prosecutors' Office, the impeachment must succeed.

Lee Wan-Bae roryrery@donga.com