As news of the release and upcoming release of high-risk sexual assault offenders spreads, public anxiety is growing. In response, the Ministry of Justice has pushed forward the "Act on Residence Restrictions for High-Risk Sexual Violence Offenders," also known as the "Korean Jessica Act," which would require sex offenders to remain in designated facilities even after their release. However, experts are divided on the effectiveness of this legislation. Professor Lee Su-jeong of Kyonggi University's Department of Criminal Psychology highly praised it, saying it "has a deterrent effect on recidivism," while Research Fellow Kim Dae-geun of the Criminal Law and Policy Research Institute expressed concerns, stating it "may have constitutional issues."
Support for the Jessica Act: "Significantly Helps Deter Recidivism"
Professor Lee Su-jeong, Department of Criminal Psychology, Kyonggi University. Photo by Heo Young-han younghan@
On the 26th, Professor Lee said on CBS's 'Kim Hyun-jung's News Show,' "It is actually difficult to guarantee that individuals like Jo Doo-soon or Kim Geun-sik, who have not yet been released, will not reoffend once they are released."
On the 24th, the Ministry of Justice announced that it would begin legislative notice on the 26th for the enactment of the "Act on Residence Restrictions for High-Risk Sexual Violence Offenders" and the amendment of the "Act on Drug Treatment for Sexual Impulse of Sexual Violence Offenders." This is to prevent the public from living in fear every time a high-risk sexual violence offender is released.
Professor Lee pointed out, "It will significantly help deter recidivism. Even though offenders are already wearing electronic anklets, since the monitoring is only geographical tracking, the number of sexual offense recidivists is gradually increasing, and it has been proven that these individuals mostly have multiple prior convictions of the same kind."
He emphasized that 'electronic supervision' using electronic anklets alone is not sufficient to prevent recidivism. He said, "It is becoming increasingly clear that electronic supervision alone cannot manage these (sexual offenders). These individuals geographically use random chat applications from their residences to lure young girls into their rooms, engaging in prostitution and sexual assault. Therefore, simply staying at home is meaningless, which leads to this judgment."
Some argue that restricting the residence of offenders based on public fear is unfair, as it targets only specific crimes. One listener questioned, "Scammers like Lee Hee-jin or major criminals like Jo Se-hyung are scarier; shouldn't they also be restricted to certain facilities after release?"
In response, Professor Lee said, "There is a huge difference between whether there is a possibility of loss of life or not." People who cause economic losses do not kill others, but if a child is repeatedly sexually assaulted, it eventually leads to the child's death. The Hwaseong serial murders were originally not serial murders but serial sexual assault cases in Hwaseong," he pointed out.
Opposition to the Jessica Act: "Excessive Restriction of Fundamental Rights and Violation of the Principle of Proportionality"
Research Fellow Kim, who opposes the Korean Jessica Act, expressed concerns that the law could exacerbate constitutional controversies. Kim said, "There are aspects that infringe on the essential content of freedom of residence, and it revives protective custody, which our Constitutional Court has previously ruled unconstitutional. Despite existing measures to prevent recidivism, introducing this is essentially an excessive restriction of fundamental rights and violates the principle of proportionality."
He explained that restricting a criminal's access to certain areas is a lesser limitation of fundamental rights, but confining them to a facility is an excessive restriction. He said, "Even if the space is large, confinement is consistently understood by our Constitutional Court as detention," adding, "The degree of fundamental rights restriction due to this detention is quite different from existing measures like electronic monitoring or drug treatment for sexual impulses."
When asked whether public rights are more important than criminal rights, Kim responded, "It is questionable how much victim protection or crime prevention effect this system will actually have. The costs to be paid for the small effectiveness, such as human rights violations, restrictions on fundamental rights, and significant breaches of the principle of proportionality, are why I raise these concerns."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
