[The Police File]A Country Where Predicted Deaths Repeat

Another week has been stained by a "predicted death." At the end of last month, a series of incidents in which stalking and dating violence escalated into murder shocked society. On July 26 in Uijeongbu, a man in his 60s brutally murdered a woman he had been stalking. On July 28 in Ulsan, a man in his 30s attacked a woman he had been stalking with a weapon, leaving her seriously injured. Just a day later, on July 29 in Daejeon, another man in his 20s killed his former partner.

The Stalking Punishment Act, enacted in October 2021 after years of public anger and debate, promised stronger protection for victims and harsher punishment for perpetrators. At the time, many hoped, "Now things will change." Yet, less than four years later, "stalking murder" remains a frequent headline in the news. The law exists, but reality remains unchanged.

The Stalking Punishment Act defines persistent stalking as a crime and provides for penalties such as imprisonment and restraining orders. However, its substance is woefully inadequate. Even if a perpetrator repeatedly violates a restraining order, actual punishment is often limited to a fine. Police often delay intervention, citing "the need for legal interpretation" or "insufficient evidence," leaving victims to endure fear alone. The law exists, but it remains a "device on paper" that fails to function in practice.

In particular, the provision allowing for non-prosecution upon the victim's disapproval effectively renders the law powerless. If the victim states they do not wish to press charges, the perpetrator can avoid legal responsibility. The problem is that this clause is often abused as a tool for perpetrators to threaten or coerce victims. Victims, fearing greater retaliation if they do not agree, express their unwillingness to prosecute, resulting in the case being closed or the sentence being reduced.

Stalking is not an unpredictable, spontaneous crime. There are clear and repeated warning signs, such as persistent approaches, threatening messages, and online surveillance. Yet the law remains focused on "after-the-fact response." It only acts after violence has occurred, and punishment comes only after death. If a law records murders rather than preventing them, it has already failed.

It is time to change the law to one with real effectiveness. The provision for non-prosecution at the victim's request should be abolished, or at the very least, not applied in cases where a serious threat has been identified. There must be strong sanctions, such as immediate detention, for violating restraining orders. Police, prosecutors, and courts must scientifically assess the risk level of each case to prevent escalation to murder at an early stage, and immediately implement practical measures such as personal protection for victims, provision of temporary shelter, and isolation of perpetrators. A society where victims must prepare for death even while following legal procedures is not a society governed by the rule of law.

Social awareness must also change fundamentally. The distorted perception that regards stalking as "obsession" or an "expression of love" still silences victims. The reality where victims are told, "That can happen between lovers," even after reporting, trivializes violence and allows crime to persist. Stalking is a clear act of violence and a serious crime that can escalate into murder at any time. Unless both legal punishment and public vigilance are strengthened, no law will be able to prevent further tragedies.

The Stalking Punishment Act, established three years ago after countless sacrifices, was meant to be a minimum safety net, but it is not functioning. If a law cannot protect people, it can no longer be called a law. Amid repeated tragedies, how much longer will the National Assembly, the government, and the judiciary remain idle? Action must be taken before the name of the next victim appears in the news. Otherwise, this society will once again, and repeatedly, remain an accomplice to predicted deaths it failed to prevent.