Justice weakened: Abolition of supplementary investigative powers risks weaker criminal investigations

Justice weakened

Abolition of supplementary investigative powers risks weaker criminal investigations

On July 31, the Democratic Party of Korea pushed through the National Assembly plenary session an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act that abolishes not only prosecutors' authority to conduct direct investigations, but also their authority to carry out supplementary investigations.

Cheong Wa Dae said it respects the National Assembly's legislative process and final decision, indicating that the president will not exercise his veto power. As a result, the abolition of prosecutors' authority to conduct supplementary investigations has all but been finalized.

From Oct. 2, when the current Korean Prosecution Service is replaced by the Prosecutors' Office and the Office of Serious Crimes Investigation, prosecutors will no longer be allowed to conduct supplementary investigations themselves, even if they find deficiencies in cases referred by the police.

Despite the bill's sweeping overhaul of the nation's criminal investigation system and its far-reaching impact on public protection from crime, the Democratic Party pushed it through without sufficient deliberation or debate.

The concerns of victims of crime and overwhelming public opposition were ignored, while only the party's political goal of completely stripping prosecutors of their investigative powers was achieved. This can only be seen as legislative overreach, using the parliamentary majority to push through legislation against the will of the people.

The legislative process was so one-sided that it raised doubts about whether democracy was functioning properly in South Korea.

Moreover, the party's last-minute insertion, without meaningful debate, of a clause expanding the grounds on which judges can dismiss prosecution raises doubts about the true intent in revising the law.

The revised law adds two new grounds on which a judge may dismiss an indictment: when an investigation involved "serious illegality" or when prosecutors made a "gross abuse of prosecutorial discretion." Vague terms such as "serious" and "gross" give courts broad latitude to terminate trials arbitrarily.

Expanding the grounds for dismissal of prosecutions, although existing precedents already allow courts to do so, raises suspicions that the real aim is to ensure that President Lee Jae Myung's criminal trials are terminated through a judge's dismissal of the prosecution when they resume after he leaves office — even if prosecutors do not withdraw the indictments.

A Gallup Korea survey last month showed that public support for retaining supplementary investigative authority stood at 61 percent, far exceeding the 23 percent who favored its complete abolition.

A majority of the public supports keeping supplementary investigative powers because they understand the harmful consequences of abolishing them.

The truth that the "Gwangju high school girl murder case" was a sexually motivated killing, not a simple murder as police had treated it, emerged only after prosecutors' further investigation.

In the Busan spinning kick attack case, prosecutors also uncovered overlooked sex crime evidence through additional investigation, resulting in a harsher sentence for the perpetrator.

The victim in the case made a public appeal to preserve supplementary investigative powers.

There were widespread calls to retain the power to conduct supplementary investigations at least in cases involving vulnerable victims, such as women and people with disabilities, but they were rejected.

The revised act leaves prosecutors with only the authority to request additional investigations. Even if prosecutors find new evidence of wrongdoing or identify shortcomings in a police probe, they must merely refer the matter back to the police for further investigation.

In such cases, victims may have to give repeated statements, while cases risk being delayed as they are shuttled back and forth between the police and the prosecution office. If police inadequately respond to requests for supplementary investigations, it will only delay the resolution of cases.

Ultimately, it is the public who will suffer the consequences.