• Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information
• /
• v.19 no.7
• /
• pp.151-159
• /
• 2014

Sometimes, the misjudgement of imperfect human can not be avoided because capital punishment is decided by a judicial officer, human. Dreiinstanzen system has been adopted to prevent misjudgement. However the possibility of misjudgement can not be entirely excluded in the judgement by a judicial officer as the judgement of a lower court and a higher tribunal depends on the specific criminal cases. And in case of capital punishment executed by misjudgement, it leads to a cruelty result which has not ways to recover the damage. There is an opinion that dangerousness of misjudgement is lacking in persuasiveness because of insufficient demonstration for the abolition of capital punishment. However, also, there is an opinion that the abolition of capital punishment in case of misjudgement is persuasive with reality. In this case, even if other punishments are discussed separately, once capital punishment is executed, it can be irrevocable unjustice because a nation itself commits a crime. According to this, I would like to find out causes of misjudgement in the criminal justice system through the cases of advanced countries, such as United states, Japan, which are rich in studies and case analysis related to misjudgement, and introduce their efforts to prevent misjudgement in this paper.

• Proceedings of the Korea Contents Association Conference
• /
• 2009.05a
• /
• pp.559-566
• /
• 2009

The Capital punishment is a sentence which imposes the defendant to be put to death for his crime, thus depriving him/her of life and it's the heaviest punishment of all. It is a very sensitive issue in the sense that it denies a person's life and dignity. It is also an on-going issue which continues to cause political and ethical controversies. Although there is no direct stipulation acknowledging capital punishment in the constitution, there is controversy on the existence of indirect basis. The Art. 12. I. can not be regarded as an indirect provision if it is interpreted to have criminal punishments stipulated by written law. As the supreme Court and the Constitution Court are supporting the capital punishment which seems unconstitutional, legislative examination is inevitable. Considering the fact that the Constitution is neither for nor against the death penalty positively, it is possible to abolish it by enactment of a law and thus, constitutional amendment would not be needed.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.59 no.3
• /
• pp.33-58
• /
• 2007

Capital punishment is a system which is not finished simply as one of interim penalty but does away with one person's existence eternally. It is not only opposite to the existential humanism but also contrary to social welfare's goal like social integration. Therefore, this study tries to find out the issues related to capital punishment and further tries to draw out the rightness of capital punishment abolition by critically reviewing the capital punishment system on the basis of the value and philosophy of correctional welfare. In brief, capital punishment is possible only when we negate the inviolable fundamental right which is called life right, and deny the human life existence which surpasses space and time. As long as we can not deny the macroscopic viewpoint to search out the basis of human behavior in the social system which is called culture and society, capital punishment system is contrary to the philosophy of welfare that total society is responsible for guiding members of society to pursue self realization on the basis of value like social solidarity and human dignity. Also, it is against the objective of correctional welfare to head toward special prevention by positive correction and rehabilitation. Capital punishment system ought to be abolished properly.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.145
• /
• pp.351-380
• /
• 2018

In every society, citizens must decide how to punish criminals, uphold the virtue of justice, and preserve the security of the community. In doing so, the members of society must ask themselves how they will punish those who carry out the most abhorrent of crimes. Many common responses to such a question is that death is an acceptable punishment for the most severe crimes. But to draw some theoretical distinction between a crime that deserves incarceration and a crime that is so heinous that it deserves capital punishment is subject to three errors. First, what possible line could be drawn? To decide on a particular number of deaths or to employ any standard would be arbitrary. Second, the use of a line would trivialize and undermine the deaths of those whose murderers fell below the standard. Third, any and all executions still are unjust, as the State should not degrade the institution of justice and dehumanize an individual who, although he or she has no respect for other human life, is still a living person. Simply put, all murders are heinous, all are completely unacceptable, and deserve the greatest punishment of the land; however, death as punishment is inappropriate. Also, while this article arrives at the conclusion that the death penalty is an inappropriate form of punishment, I have not offered an acceptable alternative that would appease those who believe capital offenders deserve a punishment that differs in its quality and severity. This is a burden that, admittedly, I am unable to meet. I finally conclude that the death penalty is unjustified retribution. This is the only claim that can effectively shift the intellectual paradigms of the participants in the debate. The continued use of the death penalty in society can only be determined and influenced by the collective conscience of the members of that society. As stated at the outset of this article, it is this essentially moral conflict regarding what is just and degrading that forms the backdrop for the past changes in and the present operation of our system of imposing death as a punishment for crime.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.22 no.6
• /
• pp.175-183
• /
• 2022

This study comparatively analyzed the cultural codes of Korea and Turkey represented in the Turkish film remaking the Korean original film. Although both films follow the narrative of resisting the tyranny of public power based on fatherly love, similarities and differences were revealed depending on the socio-cultural contexts of Korea and Turkey. First of all, Korea and Turkey valued familialism under the influence of Confucianism and Islam respectively. This was represented as a fatherly love, willing to sacrifice himself for the sake of his daughter. Meanwhile, in the Turkish version, there was a difference in the interpretation of the Islamic identity that encompasses the lives of Turkish people and the consequent human sinfulness and death. In the film, the prisoners repented of their personal sinfulness under Islamic doctrine, and sought salvation by activating the muslim brotherhood. This contrasts with the original work, which uses religion as a humor element that highlights the genre characteristics of comedy films, along with the social atmosphere in Korea that allows for the coexistence of various religions. In addition, Turkish one draws on the realistic issues of the military dictatorship of Turkey in the 1980s and the abolition of the death penalty for EU membership, bringing out a film narrative as a drama genre.