earticle

영어

A stay of execution suspends the execution of sentencing when a prisoner held in prisons after being sentenced to jail from court meets the requirement under applicable laws such as the Article 470 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There were concerns about the stay of execution system so far for possibly providing privileges only to the socially powerful class such as politicians or businessmen and for problems where prisoners ran away after the stay of execution misusing the system. The current record of prisoners granted the stay of execution on different grounds recently presented by the Ministry of Justice reveals that 938 prisoners, which is 95% of 987 prisoners that were granted the stay of execution from 2013 through March 2013, were released on parole for medical reasons. Furthermore, some upper-class prisoners stayed in the VIP room to serve time during the period of stay of execution to abuse it as a place of refuge inviting criticism of so-called ‘legal break-out’. They were allowed to be hospitalized for a long time for an unlimited number of time and length of period staying in hospitals all over the country making the efficient supervision and management of them impossible. For the fair operation of the stay of execution system, there are discussions made in various fields about reforming the applicable laws such as the Code of Criminal Procedure while improving the system involving the treatment facilities for prisoners to protect their human rights. Particularly, Congressman Tae-Won Kim proposed a representative bill followed by Congressmen Cheong-Rae Jeong and Mok-Heu Lee who prosed a bill revising a part of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning a stay of execution. Additionally, the Ministry of Justice strengthened the function and role of the review committee for the stay of execution to secure fairness and transparency in the system. The issues in the current stay of execution system are a. disputes in the objectivity and fairness in selecting recipients, b. the prosecution’ review as a mere formality, c. the presence of ambiguity in the ground for the stay of execution, d. absence of limitation on the periods and numbers of the stay of execution, e. inappropriateness of the supervisory (observatory) institution, and f. complexity in the application laws. To resolve these issues, the Revised Free-Sentencing Stay of Execution Process Guidelines (July 9, 2013) was reestablished and the contents are as follows. They are a. the ground for the stay of execution be came more demanding, b. the lack of medical knowledge in deciding the stay of execution was remedied, c. the review committee for the stay of execution was given more power, d. the right to receive not ice and raise objections was guaranteed, and e. the supervision for the prisoners granted the stay of execution was tightened. Basically, the stay of execution system can earn the trust of the public and serve its original purpose by ensuring objectivity, fairness, and procedural transparency. All systems are executed by people, therefore the person making the decision must have a faithful and fair attitude. Also, the stay of execution is granted in an emergency for essential cases and the decisions should be made as speedy as possible to serve its original purpose. For example, severe medical cases of prisoners range from 43% for hospitalization, 12.7% for intensive care units, and 6.9% for deaths relying heavily on professional medical emergency systems. Therefore, emergency stay of execution system guaranteeing no delay should be established. The world trends focus on the prevention of crimes rather than suppressing them as shown in their criminal policy making. The trend is likely to continue, so the persecution or court will expand the opportunities in the society for various free-sentencing prisoners rather than confine them in prison. It saves the cost to release them on parole or stay the execution than to detain them in prison. It also avoids the harm occurring due to confinement, provides humane conditions, and proved its effectiveness in non-confining punishment within the criminal law system. In this regard, the Temporary Release system of the U.S. and the U.K. should be introduced after a positive consideration. This system was known to contribute to the reformation of prisoners and helping them adapt to society greatly within the appropriate and necessary extent along with the release system. The purpose of its application is education, training, and jobs. The review of this temporary parole system in the aspect of stay of execution is urgently required to meet our unique environment.