{"id":2203639,"date":"2024-01-26T15:58:38","date_gmt":"2024-01-26T06:58:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/koreapro.org\/?p=2203639"},"modified":"2024-01-29T17:37:29","modified_gmt":"2024-01-29T08:37:29","slug":"south-koreas-new-mugshot-law-sparks-transparency-versus-privacy-debate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/koreapro.org\/2024\/01\/south-koreas-new-mugshot-law-sparks-transparency-versus-privacy-debate\/","title":{"rendered":"South Korea\u2019s new mugshot law sparks transparency versus privacy debate"},"content":{"rendered":"
In South Korea, the implementation of a mugshot disclosure law has ignited a national debate, pitting the public\u2019s right to information against concerns for criminal suspects\u2019 privacy and legal rights.<\/span><\/p>\n This law, a response to increasing public demand fueled by high-profile criminal cases last year, now allows authorities increased discretion in revealing the identities of criminal suspects. While many view this as a stride toward transparency and justice, some experts have told <\/span>Korea Pro<\/span><\/i> that the newly implemented law harbors some legal and constitutional concerns.<\/span><\/p>\n Local legal authorities\u2019 reluctance to disclose criminal suspects\u2019 identities came under the spotlight when South Koreans observed international media identifying the assailant who attempted to assassinate main opposition Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung earlier this month after amateur internet sleuths widely disseminated the attacker\u2019s personal information on social media.<\/span><\/p>\n This contrasted sharply with domestic media\u2019s adherence to police instructions to refrain from identifying him, amplifying public frustration and leading to widespread calls for legal reform.<\/span><\/p>\n Despite its popularity with the public, the transition to the new law is not without controversy. While it aims to address public concerns over information access and suspect accountability, it could also lead to potential legal challenges and ethical dilemmas.<\/span><\/p>\n Experts warn of the law\u2019s populist underpinnings and highlight the need to balance public safety and uphold individual rights.<\/span><\/p>\n LEGAL REFORMS<\/b><\/p>\n Formally named the \u201c<\/span>Act on the Disclosure of Personal Information such as Suspects of Specific Serious Crimes<\/span><\/a>,\u201d the newly enacted mugshot disclosure law is a response to the public\u2019s outcry for transparency, especially following incidents where the actual appearances of high-profile criminal suspects diverged significantly from their publicly available, often outdated and photoshopped, photographs.<\/span><\/p>\n This law, which came into effect this Thursday, replaces specific clauses in <\/span>two<\/span><\/a> prior<\/span><\/a> special acts concerning sexual assault and violent crimes, thereby broadening the scope of cases where suspects\u2019 identities may be disclosed.<\/span><\/p>\n Initially, legal authorities only disclosed criminal suspects\u2019 identities to the public if they had committed violent crimes, such as sexual assault or murder. However, under the new mandate, more types of crimes are covered, including rebellion, certain drug offenses and crimes against children and minors.<\/span><\/p>\n However, the process of disclosure itself has undergone significant changes.<\/span><\/p>\n Central to these changes is the introduction of a reparation clause, a legal acknowledgment of the potential for erroneous or unjust disclosure. This provision allows criminal suspects to seek compensation from the state if they are subsequently found not guilty or not prosecuted.<\/span><\/p>\n The law has also eased the criteria for releasing criminal suspects\u2019 personal information such as their name and age. Previously, the law heavily regulated such disclosure, requiring substantial evidence and a clear public interest justification, such as crime prevention or mitigating the risk of repeat offenses. Other clauses stated that disclosing suspects\u2019 identities would be permissible only if the crimes were \u201ccruel\u201d or if the resulting harm was \u201cserious.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n However, the new law permits authorities to capture and disclose mugshots \u201cif needed,\u201d effectively lowering the threshold for release and granting law enforcement more discretion.<\/span><\/p>\n This change, which also removed the need to acquire a criminal suspect\u2019s consent to release their personal information, represents a significant departure from past practices. Instead of consent, criminal suspects are now only allowed to express their opinions on the disclosure before a five-day waiting period precedes the public release of their identities.<\/span><\/p>\n The new law\u2019s broader, more flexible guidelines come amid the police\u2019s justification for refusing to disclose the personal information of the man who attempted to assassinate Lee Jae-myung. The police said that the attack failed to meet the \u201ccruel\u201d or \u201cserious harm\u201d criteria.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n