Criminals: Concealed or Revealed?

20721 유서연

Let’s assume that you are attending a class and are waiting for the teacher. But suddenly, the door bursts open, and your teacher stomps into the room. She yells that one of your classmates has copied an essay straight from the Internet. Yet, she is not going to reveal who the cheater is. Does your teacher’s penalty seem appropriate to you? And what if the same verdict has been given to bloody slaughterers? Would this be proper? According to the law regarding “Special Case Act on the Punishment of Specific Violent Crimes” of Korea, it is stated that the identities of the criminals are informed to the public in brutal crime cases, and when conclusive evidence pointing to the suspect exists. Here, the voices of those who assert that the criminal’s fundamental human rights cannot be neglected, so the law should be abolished and those who think this law is suitable collides. I believe the law should be kept, and in some cases, even enhanced.

To begin with, the security of the public must be regarded. Though some believe in “second chance”; that all should obtain a chance to make up for their so-called mistakes, it is apparent that the ones who committed a crime in the past are likely to make a “mistake” once more. According to a study at Cambridge University, it was found that about 37 percent of the former criminals were rearrested for a new crime and were prisoned again, in the first three years they were freed. Here, it can be concluded that though viewing all offenders as potential criminals is inappropriate, the public should be aware of the former cruel culprits to defend themselves in some rare but possible circumstances. The police do not have the power to protect all citizens' rights when needed, so it is crucial to supplement citizen’s basic knowledge of crimes. And the first step here is conserving this law.

Next, the public’s right to know must be weighed. Our country, South Korea lays its basis of  politics on democracy. According to the Britannica Dictionary, the word democracy derives from the Greek dēmokratiā, which is the addition of two words “demos” meaning “people”, and “kratos” defined as “rule”. Put together, it suggests the original, and the most primary definition of democracy, “people rule”. Here, the “people” points to the “public”. And for the people to rule, information must be shared justly. Of course, this does not indicate that all the data, including the personal ones, should be revealed to everyone, as democracy should also ensure individual rights. But information that directly relates to the safety of the civilians should be shared, as it is a country’s obligation to protect the citizens. Therefore, the grasp of the data about the felons is within the boundaries of the public’s right.

Lastly, thought reversely, the exposure deters false accusations of innocent people. Some users of the Internet, trying to earn money and interests from people, accuses innocents as the subjects of crimes, and the viewers, deceived from the elaborate fabrication of the accusers, believe in them. In fact, a website called “To Video” was found to have done such things- the owner of the website subjected a mere thief, presently in jail, to be a brutal criminal.  Fortunately, this website was found by the police and the fraud was eventually adjusted by the truth. But there are thousands of other similar websites in the Internet left uncaught. However, by revealing the specific, exact information formally announced by the police, the number of these frauds will decline.

In conclusion, as the saying goes, “Citizens are the country”; the citizens, we, have the right to be protected thoroughly by our country. Additionally, it is the government’s obligation to maintain a steady and clean country. From many steps we can take to have our rights served justly, implementing the law revealing the identities of severe criminals is the first step we can take. This law should be enacted.