Rank-and-file prosecutors are taking organized action in opposing the Presidential Committee on Judicial Reform's ideas about amending the law regarding criminal court proceedings. They are meeting by region, and there is a national conference of rank-and-file prosecutors in the works. Reportedly some among them are calling for them all to submit their resignations if the framework of the revision bill is not changed. The "prosecution rebellion" is not something that should be made a big deal over nor should be encouraged.
It is not that we cannot understand the prosecution's worries about the committee's revision proposal. Changing the framework of criminal trials that has been in place for decades was not going to be a simple thing. Prosecutors are saying that if the committee's proposals are implemented it will become too difficult to prove guilt in court and that that will mean there are many instances were the guilty get to go free. Indeed, even within the committee there are differences of opinion about completely prohibiting examination of the accused in court, and there are adjustments under discussion. It needs to sufficiently debate the points of contention to make sure problems do not arise later. The prosecution needs to actively express its views before the bill to revise the law is finalized.
But one wonders whether the way to go about it is holding a national meeting of rank-and-file prosecutors. It looked more like a protest than a debate. Placing more emphasis on the trial process was always a major part of judicial reform, something about which there was a consensus before the committee was formed. The prosecution lost public approval when started emphasizing "concerns about the reduction in investigative authority," which from the start was out of step with the principles. When prosecutors meet they should not be doing so to express worries about reductions in their authority; they should meet to debate reform and things overlooked by the committee's proposal.
In the past as well there were times when regular prosecutors took collective action. Doing so has been a tool for symbolically demonstrating how the prosecution feels as an organization on important issues. They should remember, however, that their actions won the people's support only when they were in line with the public interest. They should recall how they were cynically called "prosecutorial" (geomsaseureopda) for being trapped in their own logic when they met with the president at the start of the Participatory Government.
The Hankyoreh, 4 May 2005.
[Translations by Seoul Selection (PMS)]
[Editorial] Prosecution Should Contribute to Better Proposal |
