The Democratic Party of Korea has accelerated its legislative efforts by introducing a bill to completely abolish prosecutors' supplementary investigation powers on July 8. This move comes amid strong opposition from the main opposition party, People Power Party. The proposed amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act, led by the ruling party, seeks to strip prosecutors of both their direct investigation powers and supplementary investigation powers, consolidating the investigative authority solely with judicial police officers.
As the judicial framework undergoes significant changes with the planned abolition of the prosecution office and the establishment of a public prosecution office in October, extreme confrontations between the ruling and opposition parties have emerged. There are also growing concerns within the ruling party about potential negative consequences. Currently, various sectors of society are sharply divided over the abolition of supplementary investigation powers. Proponents argue that separating investigation and prosecution is the final piece in completing the overarching principle of reform aimed at preventing the abuse of prosecutorial power. They contend that allowing prosecutors to exercise supplementary investigation powers while holding prosecutorial authority effectively keeps the door open for direct investigations, which must be closed to reform the omnipotent prosecutorial organization.
Conversely, opponents warn of a vacuum in the investigative structure and a lack of judicial oversight. They express concerns that the complete elimination of supplementary investigation powers would remove a buffer zone to correct errors or deficiencies in police investigations before the court trial stage, thereby losing a means to check the expanding power of the police. Notably, within the ruling party, serious divisions and calls for caution have surfaced. Hardline members are pushing for rapid progress to demonstrate the 'clarity of reform' amid party leadership competition. However, some rational-minded lawmakers have repeatedly warned that “practical supplementary measures are needed to minimize unjust victimization.”
The recent 'Jang Yoon-ki case' exemplifies that these concerns are not unfounded. Due to inadequate initial police investigations and allegations of organized evidence destruction, a case that could have been dismissed as simple murder was revealed as 'murder with sexual assault' through thorough supplementary investigations by the prosecution, leading to the arrest of the police investigation team leader. In light of the scrutiny over the fairness and capability of police investigations, if the supplementary investigation function of the prosecution is mechanically abolished, the consequences will inevitably fall on ordinary citizens. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that the political arena is hastily pushing the bill while being preoccupied with political gains.
The ultimate goal of judicial reform should not be a power struggle among institutions but rather the protection of citizens' rights and the stabilization of their livelihoods. Following the previous adjustments to the investigative powers of the police and prosecution, the public has already experienced significant delays in handling complaints and accusations due to the police's workload. Particularly alarming is the absence of judicial oversight measures regarding the expanded police powers following the abolition of supplementary investigation powers. The Democratic Party must devise effective supplementary measures to check and control the growing police authority. Transferring power without judicial oversight will lead to another monopoly and corruption, resulting in inconveniences and security gaps for citizens, which will ultimately burden the common people.
Lawmakers must not fall into the folly of focusing solely on stripping prosecutors of their powers while ignoring the tears and suffering of crime victims. There is a pressing need to establish thorough countermeasures to fill the gaps in judicial justice. Both ruling and opposition parties should collaborate to design practical supplementary measures that prevent delays in civil cases and ensure the judicial rights of ordinary citizens. Regardless of how compelling the justification for reform may be, it is crucial to remember that reforms that disrupt citizens' daily lives and create unjust victims cannot be deemed legitimate.
As the judicial framework undergoes significant changes with the planned abolition of the prosecution office and the establishment of a public prosecution office in October, extreme confrontations between the ruling and opposition parties have emerged. There are also growing concerns within the ruling party about potential negative consequences. Currently, various sectors of society are sharply divided over the abolition of supplementary investigation powers. Proponents argue that separating investigation and prosecution is the final piece in completing the overarching principle of reform aimed at preventing the abuse of prosecutorial power. They contend that allowing prosecutors to exercise supplementary investigation powers while holding prosecutorial authority effectively keeps the door open for direct investigations, which must be closed to reform the omnipotent prosecutorial organization.
Conversely, opponents warn of a vacuum in the investigative structure and a lack of judicial oversight. They express concerns that the complete elimination of supplementary investigation powers would remove a buffer zone to correct errors or deficiencies in police investigations before the court trial stage, thereby losing a means to check the expanding power of the police. Notably, within the ruling party, serious divisions and calls for caution have surfaced. Hardline members are pushing for rapid progress to demonstrate the 'clarity of reform' amid party leadership competition. However, some rational-minded lawmakers have repeatedly warned that “practical supplementary measures are needed to minimize unjust victimization.”
The recent 'Jang Yoon-ki case' exemplifies that these concerns are not unfounded. Due to inadequate initial police investigations and allegations of organized evidence destruction, a case that could have been dismissed as simple murder was revealed as 'murder with sexual assault' through thorough supplementary investigations by the prosecution, leading to the arrest of the police investigation team leader. In light of the scrutiny over the fairness and capability of police investigations, if the supplementary investigation function of the prosecution is mechanically abolished, the consequences will inevitably fall on ordinary citizens. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that the political arena is hastily pushing the bill while being preoccupied with political gains.
The ultimate goal of judicial reform should not be a power struggle among institutions but rather the protection of citizens' rights and the stabilization of their livelihoods. Following the previous adjustments to the investigative powers of the police and prosecution, the public has already experienced significant delays in handling complaints and accusations due to the police's workload. Particularly alarming is the absence of judicial oversight measures regarding the expanded police powers following the abolition of supplementary investigation powers. The Democratic Party must devise effective supplementary measures to check and control the growing police authority. Transferring power without judicial oversight will lead to another monopoly and corruption, resulting in inconveniences and security gaps for citizens, which will ultimately burden the common people.
Lawmakers must not fall into the folly of focusing solely on stripping prosecutors of their powers while ignoring the tears and suffering of crime victims. There is a pressing need to establish thorough countermeasures to fill the gaps in judicial justice. Both ruling and opposition parties should collaborate to design practical supplementary measures that prevent delays in civil cases and ensure the judicial rights of ordinary citizens. Regardless of how compelling the justification for reform may be, it is crucial to remember that reforms that disrupt citizens' daily lives and create unjust victims cannot be deemed legitimate.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.