“Today there was a criminal accusation by a conservative group. Of course, crimes of sexual violence are non-confidential and can be investigated by the police or accused a third party. However, the victim has already clearly clarified what they want to do at the Justice Party level, and respect for this is the first step. Accordingly, it is not advisable to conduct an investigation against the will of the victim in a situation where disciplinary procedures and follow-up measures are already in progress.”
This is a remark on the 26th by Kim Yun-ki, acting representative of the Justice Party Party. In fact, on the 25th, the moment when the then-CEO Kim Jong-cheol of the Justice Party publicly molested the same party’s lawmaker Jang Hye-young, the case has expanded to the area of investigation. This is because the crime of parenting was abolished in 2013 in laws related to sexual violence such as forced harassment. In other words, even if the victim does not want to, criminal proceedings can be initiated only with the accusation of a third party or the recognition of the investigative agency. On the 26th, the NGO active Bindan accused former CEO Kim of the Yeongdeungpo Police Station.
The Justice Party leadership’s judgment is the result of accepting the position of the victim, Assemblyman Jang. On the 25th, Rep. Jang did not want criminal punishment, said concerns about secondary damage, and the fictitiousness of victimhood. Bae Bok-ju, head of the Justice Party’s Gender Human Rights Headquarters, said on the day, “The victim can decide the solution they want when solving the problem. “Is it really for the victims to investigate against?”
Acting Representative Kim was insisted by the party’s official position as the party’s official position to reject the investigation. Is it okay to receive the victim’s argument?
Representative Kim left some mistakes. This is a mistake that has nothing to do with Rep. Chang. The public party should present a message that considers both the public message and the current law. The accusation against former CEO Kim was predicted at the moment of public debate. Under the current law, if a criminal offense, which is a crime of unconfidence, is publicized, and if the party is willing to solve it only, criticism is naturally criticized as’covering the family.’ Not only the general public but also the party members are not able to sympathize with the message of the party leadership because the response logic has not been prepared firmly.
Criticism has also emerged within the party for remarks on behalf of Kim. When he said’the principle of zero tolerance’, he pointed out why he avoided the police investigation. As Kim himself said, the current law allows prosecution and investigation, but why is the Justice Party an exception? Indeed, the question remains that if such an incident occurred in the power of the Democratic Party or the people, it would not have ordered strong criminal punishment. Rather, there are concerns that reluctance to investigate the police will add to the question of the secondary persecution of’is sexual harassment correct?’
Some argue that in order to block unnecessary secondary harassment remarks, the party leadership should take preemptive accusations and then throw a message stating,’Because we have entered criminal proceedings, let’s take our care for the victims’.
In fact, if the victim does not cooperate with the investigative agency, it is difficult for the investigation to proceed properly. This is the victim’s judgment and right to be respected. While there is a way to protect the victim’s reputation in this way, it is another dimension for the perpetrator and the victim’s party to speak out. This can lead to misunderstandings of protecting the perpetrator, who was the party’s representative.
This is the reason why the Justice Party criticizes that it is ‘naro-nambul’ because of the crime of confession outside the party.
Recently, the Justice Party has not been making public debate about some of the side effects of sexual crimes, but the party leadership did not leave any stance on non-confessional crimes in this case. Strictly asserting that political parties within the institutional sphere should not investigate what is possible under the current criminal law without detailed explanation, it is an act that ultimately criticizes conservative organizations and turns them over to the responsibility of investigative agencies.
The abolition of parental guilty in sexual violence cases is evaluated as a step forward in the history of women’s rights. This is the result of the efforts of numerous human rights activists. This means that we will now recognize sexual crime as a social problem, not as an individual’s deviation, and punish it as a serious crime.
On this day, Acting Representative Kim said, “People and party members, the Justice Party does not see this incident as an individual deviation.”
In sexual offenses, parental offenses have long served as shackles to block victims’ mouths. In the meantime, it has been criticized that the public power has reduced sex crimes to a private level that can be resolved through agreement between the victim and the perpetrator rather than punishing them. Accordingly, it was criticized as a logic derived from a male-centered view that sexual violence is viewed as a form of sexual relations. In the name of respecting the victim’s will, punishment for the perpetrator was difficult, and the perpetrator constantly struggled to obtain agreement from the victim. It seems that the public power has overlooked the intimidation, intimidation, and various secondary abuses.
In this context, the abolition of sexual convictions has had a positive effect of reducing the burden on victims. Nevertheless, the perpetrator constantly tried to reach an agreement with the victim. This is because even if the victim did not directly sue, it would affect the sentencing if it was agreed upon and submitted to the court. Despite the abolition of parenting, the burden on the victims still remains.
On the contrary, the abolition of parental guilt has a side effect that the investigation proceeds against the victim’s doctor. There is a burden on the investigation itself, but you also have to worry about the secondary damage that the investigating agency will face and the concern that the damage will be leaked through the investigating agency. Devices to compensate for this have been discussed in academia, but not properly publicized in politics.
The Justice Party, including Acting Kim’s office, must provide answers to the crimes of prosecution and non-promotion in the case of sexual crimes. This is a question of how the Justice Party will solidarity with victims in numerous other sexual crime cases and the standards. At least, this criterion must be clear as it has declared that it will speak out for gender equality.
We hope that this case will serve as an opportunity to discuss a third way to harmonize the victim’s will and the state’s right to punishment, rather than the alternative between pro-confidence and non-confidence in sex crime cases. At the right time, the Justice Party should also jump into this debate and consider the relevant legislation if necessary.
Copyright © Media Today, unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.