The working-level task force responsible for judicial reform proposals has released another proposal for revising the criminal trial law. Much of the prosecution's complaints about the earlier proposal were implemented. The result is that this final proposal is very out of step with the original goal of making criminal trials more dependent on the trial process and on less investigation records submitted by the prosecution, since the latter will still be partially recognized as evidence.
According to this latest proposal, as long as a court recognizes that an interrogation is legal and transparent in that a lawyer is present and that the accused is given the right to refuse issue a statement, the resulting records can be recognized as evidence even if the accused denies the validity of his statement at trial time. By itself that idea sounds logical. The reality, however, is that the accused does not get ample lawyer assistance while being interrogated. If it is this proposal that is adopted the country will most likely have slightly improved "trial by written evidence" instead of "trial by court process."
This final version also allows for the submission as evidence of video footage of the interrogation when a defendant negates his written statement. Video influences courts much more than written statements. It would be one thing if video of the entire interrogation process is submitted and judges watch them in their entirety, but it would be dangerous if the prosecution has any possibility of submitting portions advantageous to its position.
There is merit to the prosecution's concerns about how if it becomes too difficult to prove guilt there will be times when people commit crimes but go unpunished. But as long as the written documents resulting from interrogations are recognized as evidence, there will be little improvement in the prosecution's investigative techniques and for the most part the old practice of depending on confessions for convictions will remain in tact. Investigations that demand confessions are the most likely to infringe on civil rights. This proposal actually takes more steps backwards than the recent Supreme Court judgment that essentially does not recognize the prosecution's written evidence when its validity is denied by the defendant. We hope this is given careful consideration at the working-level deputy ministers' meeting and at the ministerial meeting.
The Hankyoreh, 8 July 2005.
[Translations by Seoul Selection (PMS)]
[Editorial] Big Step Backwards for Criminal Trial Law |
