[The Police File]Laws Alone Cannot Prevent Crime

On June 30, at a villa in Sillim-dong, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, a man in his 30s attacked victims in their 20s and 30s with a weapon, injuring their shoulder and ankle, respectively. The man reportedly visited the victims' residence, rang the doorbell, and attacked them with a weapon when they opened the door. It has been confirmed that the man and the victims did not know each other.

A week earlier, in Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, a man in his 20s was arrested after attacking his ex-girlfriend with a weapon following a breakup. The man, who had previously served prison time for a similar crime, only stopped his assault after the police arrived in response to his ex-girlfriend's report. Last month, in Siheung, Gyeonggi Province, there was also an incident where a man stabbed a female convenience store owner with a weapon and fled the scene.

These incidents inevitably raise questions about the effectiveness of the "crime of carrying a weapon in public places," which has been in effect for more than two months. The 2023 Sillim Station stabbing incident in Seoul deeply shocked society, and similar cases across the country have fueled widespread fear of random attacks. In response, the government introduced the "crime of carrying a weapon in public places." The law stipulates that anyone carrying a weapon in a public place without a legitimate reason and causing public anxiety faces up to three years in prison or a fine of up to 10 million won. The law was designed to punish "potential threats" that were difficult to address under existing criminal or misdemeanor laws.

Since the law took effect, a man in his 40s was arrested in Jeju for appearing with a weapon at an event attended by about 200 citizens, and in Busan, several men carrying weapons in public places or causing disturbances were also apprehended by the police. The law is considered to have a certain preventive effect, as it enables early intervention before a stabbing rampage occurs.

However, it has also become clear that the "possession offense" alone is not enough to fundamentally prevent weapon-related crimes. The cases mentioned earlier are symbolic examples. The interpretation of "legitimate reason" is ambiguous. People carrying work tools for their jobs, or those with equipment for hobbies such as camping or fishing, could also be subject to police sanctions depending on the officer's judgment.

There are also concerns about the effectiveness of enforcement. If someone is carrying a weapon and moves around calmly, it is not easy to detect them in advance. In fact, many arrests have been based on reports of "suspicious individuals." Such passive responses are inherently vulnerable to the suddenness and speed of these crimes. Furthermore, many weapon rampages are rooted in structural issues such as mental illness or social isolation. Simply focusing on the "presence or absence" of a weapon cannot explain or prevent such complex criminal motivations.

Ultimately, a more sophisticated, prevention-oriented response system must be established. In particular, strengthening early intervention systems for mental health is urgent. An integrated management system should be created so that police, health agencies, and local governments can cooperate in responding to individuals who repeatedly display abnormal behavior, even if they have no criminal record. The adoption of intelligent CCTV and AI-based behavior analysis technologies should also proceed in parallel. Technologies that detect loitering or sudden behavioral changes in public places and issue real-time alerts are already being piloted in some countries. In Korea, an AI video analysis company has developed and released technology that tracks individuals carrying weapons and notifies authorities of dangerous situations.

The "crime of carrying a weapon in public places" is certainly a meaningful step forward. However, what we need now is detection rather than mere enforcement, and intervention rather than punishment. Safety cannot be guaranteed by a single legal provision. Ultimately, it is the sophistication of prevention and solidarity within society that fills the gaps left by the law.