Korea’s ‘Legal’ System–A Devastating Contrast to the Rule of Law
Finally, I can’t restrain my enthusiasm over this Korea Times column, which completely nails my own complaints about the Korean legal system. As someone who dealt regularly with the deficiencies that system on a regular basis while a JAG officer in Korea, its awfulness has been a favorite rant of mine since the early days of this blog (ht The Marmot).
The context is the “Hong Kong Eleven,” a group of violent South Korean union thugs who went to Hong Kong with the specific purpose of engaging in violence, injured several police officers, and got the precise treatment that they should have received in Korea, but never would: a fair trial and appropriate punishment (Hong Kong’s legal system follow the best British traditions). What a devastating contrast for anyone who has ever had any experience with Korean criminal procedure:
There, the police made arrests and conducted an investigation. They talked to witnesses, reviewed photos and video footage, and determined there was enough evidence for prosecutors to lay charges. In Korea, the prosecutors would have done the investigation and decided whether to indict or not. If they opted for indictment, the judge would agree with the prosecution as a matter of course (if statistics are to be believed, that happens in 99 percent of cases) and, in the end, the “accused” would have been advised by council to plead guilty and beg for mercy.
It was interesting watching the Koreans avail themselves of the justice system there, knowing full well that the same rights are not extended to the accused here at home. In Hong Kong, they were allowed a lawyer, and given the latitude to mount a real defense in which their defender could cast doubt on the evidence brought by the prosecutors, all done under an assumption of innocence that forces the prosecutors to carry the burden of proof. Because of that burden, the trial was fair.
In this case, the judge ruled the prosecution didn’t had insufficient evidence and let the men go. This isn’t an example of Hong Kong punishing Koreans for political purposes, as alleged by the Korean defense attorney, who comported himself with all the grace of a child whose candy was taken away. It was a matter of due process.
And what did the police say? “We have done our best to present evidence in a way that is most fair to the defendants.” And then this: “You have to present the case in a fair manner, in accordance with the rule of law. Evidence must satisfy the standard set by the legal system.”
When was the last time such words were uttered at the end of a dispute of any kind in Korea?
To that, I can add regular, reliable reports that Korean judges slept in court and persistent stories from my friends in the CID that Korean police, particularly those who worked for the prosecution, used the water torture and electric cattle prods on Korean suspects. To be completely fair, however, the Korean system does occasionally stumble into just results. In one case, a soldier who accused of sexual assault was exonerated after some fairly coercive police questioning forced the “victim” to reveal and authenticate evidence that she was paid, fair and square, by credit card(!).
And they wonder why we don’t want American soldiers tried in that system? The one good thing Roh tried to accomplish was the reform of a legal system that’s a decrepit wreck of a leftover from the Japanese occupation. That part of the agenda, sadly, is going nowhere.
No wonder South Korean unions and “civic groups” choose violence over reason. Not only is it the path of least resistance, it’s the form of protest to which the South Korean government is clearly more responsive.