During a trip with friends, I once experienced the sudden shutdown of my car on the highway. Fortunately, I was able to pull over to the shoulder and contact my insurance company, preventing a major accident. A friend who had brought an old car ended up scrapping it and buying a new one.
If we liken government operations to driving a vehicle, the current pace of our government is relatively fast. The ruling party, the Democratic Party, along with a legislative body that holds over 180 seats, is focused on high-intensity reforms under the banner of a 'working government.'
The abolition of the prosecutor's office and the establishment of the Serious Crime Investigation Agency and the Prosecution Service have significantly altered the criminal justice system. This transformation brings to mind my experience of a car engine shutting down, raising concerns about whether the new system will function properly. There is a fear that if the criminal justice system fails, it could lead to a halt for the nation, akin to a car coming to a stop.
While inertia may keep things moving for now, it is clear that if the criminal justice system collapses, it could result in a state of 'war of all against all.' In such a scenario, the vehicle representing South Korea would lose its momentum.
Therefore, when considering changes to the criminal justice system, which can be seen as a component of the state, we must evaluate its compatibility with the vehicle we are currently driving. Yet, Democratic Party lawmakers who led the revision of the criminal procedure law have made statements like, 'If the system is poorly designed, the National Assembly should take responsibility' and 'We can make adjustments as needed.'
It raises questions about whether adjustments can be made if the national criminal justice system collapses into a state of chaos. If such adjustments are impossible, how can accountability be ensured? In the reality of our National Assembly, dominated by the two major parties, the promise of accountability sounds hollow. How should the public interpret a situation where there is no responsible party, and the message is not 'We are fully prepared, so trust us,' but rather 'We can make adjustments as we go' in such an irresponsible manner?
Warnings have already emerged even before the new Serious Crime Investigation Agency and Prosecution Service have officially launched. Concerns about excessive police power have been overshadowed by vague calls for 'police reform.' With the launch just a day away, there are still no appointed heads for the Serious Crime Investigation Agency or the Prosecution Service. The police chief has also been operating under an extended acting capacity.
As the ruling coalition claims, a system that separates investigation and prosecution may be better. However, the anxiety surrounding the new criminal justice system, which is already showing signs of trouble before its inception, leads to questions about whether a more refined and perfect legal framework could have been developed. With only a day left until the abolition of the prosecutor's office and the launch of the new agencies, it is hard not to agree with the opposition's criticism that 'there has been no real preparation beyond changing the signboard.'
When the car engine shut down on the highway, one of my friends remarked, 'At least it wasn't a brake failure.' There is no disagreement that brake failure is one of the most dangerous situations one can encounter while driving. A malfunctioning brake system is likely to lead to serious accidents.
Since becoming the ruling party, the Democratic Party has employed every means necessary to pass its desired legislation. This has been characterized as 'legislative overreach' both inside and outside political circles. During the process of introducing the new criminal justice system, dissenting opinions emerged even within the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, the revision of the criminal procedure law, which completely abolishes the prosecutor's supplementary investigative powers, passed the National Assembly. I hope this is not a sign of a brake failure in the legislative body.
If we liken government operations to driving a vehicle, the current pace of our government is relatively fast. The ruling party, the Democratic Party, along with a legislative body that holds over 180 seats, is focused on high-intensity reforms under the banner of a 'working government.'
The abolition of the prosecutor's office and the establishment of the Serious Crime Investigation Agency and the Prosecution Service have significantly altered the criminal justice system. This transformation brings to mind my experience of a car engine shutting down, raising concerns about whether the new system will function properly. There is a fear that if the criminal justice system fails, it could lead to a halt for the nation, akin to a car coming to a stop.
While inertia may keep things moving for now, it is clear that if the criminal justice system collapses, it could result in a state of 'war of all against all.' In such a scenario, the vehicle representing South Korea would lose its momentum.
Therefore, when considering changes to the criminal justice system, which can be seen as a component of the state, we must evaluate its compatibility with the vehicle we are currently driving. Yet, Democratic Party lawmakers who led the revision of the criminal procedure law have made statements like, 'If the system is poorly designed, the National Assembly should take responsibility' and 'We can make adjustments as needed.'
It raises questions about whether adjustments can be made if the national criminal justice system collapses into a state of chaos. If such adjustments are impossible, how can accountability be ensured? In the reality of our National Assembly, dominated by the two major parties, the promise of accountability sounds hollow. How should the public interpret a situation where there is no responsible party, and the message is not 'We are fully prepared, so trust us,' but rather 'We can make adjustments as we go' in such an irresponsible manner?
Warnings have already emerged even before the new Serious Crime Investigation Agency and Prosecution Service have officially launched. Concerns about excessive police power have been overshadowed by vague calls for 'police reform.' With the launch just a day away, there are still no appointed heads for the Serious Crime Investigation Agency or the Prosecution Service. The police chief has also been operating under an extended acting capacity.
As the ruling coalition claims, a system that separates investigation and prosecution may be better. However, the anxiety surrounding the new criminal justice system, which is already showing signs of trouble before its inception, leads to questions about whether a more refined and perfect legal framework could have been developed. With only a day left until the abolition of the prosecutor's office and the launch of the new agencies, it is hard not to agree with the opposition's criticism that 'there has been no real preparation beyond changing the signboard.'
When the car engine shut down on the highway, one of my friends remarked, 'At least it wasn't a brake failure.' There is no disagreement that brake failure is one of the most dangerous situations one can encounter while driving. A malfunctioning brake system is likely to lead to serious accidents.
Since becoming the ruling party, the Democratic Party has employed every means necessary to pass its desired legislation. This has been characterized as 'legislative overreach' both inside and outside political circles. During the process of introducing the new criminal justice system, dissenting opinions emerged even within the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, the revision of the criminal procedure law, which completely abolishes the prosecutor's supplementary investigative powers, passed the National Assembly. I hope this is not a sign of a brake failure in the legislative body.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.