“I express my great regret for proceeding with the criminal charges against the perpetrator while ignoring my intentions. It is very unfair.” (Jang Hye-young, Justice Party member)
“The Justice Party agrees to abolish the abolition of parental convictions, and says not to prosecute criminal charges for allegations of sexual harassment by the party’s representative.”
The sexual harassment case of former Justice Party leader Kim Jong-cheol has spread to the’controversy over sexual harassment’. This controversy was triggered by a conservative civic group accusing the police of former Justice Party leader Kim Jong-cheol, who sexually harassed Justice Party lawmaker Jang Hye-young on the 26th.
Jang Hye-young, Justice Party member. News 1
When Kim Jong-cheol was accused, Jang Hye-young “ignores my intention”
There is a lot of debate online. “The rights of the victims are important, but it is also important to show the dignity of the law to those who have committed the wrongdoing,” or “It is a second offense to not respect the intentions of the victims.” One netizen argued, “It is the right of the party supporters to know the exact facts through the investigative agency about why the party representative resigned.”
Hwabindan, who accused former Justice Party leader Kim Jong-cheol to the Seoul Yeongdeungpo Police Station, insisted, “As it is not the end of the resignation and position system, former CEO Kim should be subjected to strict legal judgment.” In June 2013, as the rules of parental conviction for forced harassment were abolished, investigation into the case of sexual harassment accusations by active poor groups under the Act is possible.
Rep. Jang, the victim, immediately protested this situation. On the same day, he wrote on Facebook, “I am sorry for the criminal prosecution against the perpetrator, unilaterally ignoring my intentions without any communication with me.” He then criticized it as “a frivolous action that hinders return to normal.”
Rep. Jang also said, “The decision not to proceed with the complaint through the judicial system is not for the perpetrator, but for myself,” he said. “Misleading the judicial process as if it were the victim’s duty is just another force of victimhood.” I wrote it down. Regarding parental crimes, he said, “The purpose of the revised sex crime from parental sin to non-confidential crime is to respect the will of the victim and expand the rights, but to ignore the will of the victim. Criminal complaints are one of the ways victims find their rights.”
Justice Party representative Kang Eun-mi apologizes for causing concern over the sexual harassment case of representative Kim Jong-cheol at a parliamentary general meeting held at the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul on the morning of the 26th. The right is Senator Shim Sang-jung. Reporter Oh Jong-taek
“The Justice Party took the lead in abolishing parental convictions… ”
Regarding the positions of the Justice Party and Rep. Chang, Rep. Ha Tae-gyeong on his Facebook page on the 27th said, “The Justice Party was in a position that it should accept sex crime as a social issue, not as an individual deviation.” He continued, “(The Justice Party) has been in favor of the abolition of parental guilty of punishment if a third party accuses it even if the party does not want to. Still, he criticized him not to prosecute criminal charges for allegations of sexual harassment by his party representative.”
The abolition of parental conviction was included in the 7th women’s pledge of the then progressive political party presidential candidate Shim Sang-jung in November 2012. It was a content that’we will promote the abolition of sexual violence and domestic violence parental crimes.’ Even in April of last year, the Justice Party said that the former DB Group chairman Kim Joon-ki, who was accused of sexual assault of domestic workers, was sentenced to probation at the first trial. He argued that the harassment should be punished strongly, such as saying that the behavior of the judges is deplorable.”
“The victim grabs the fat and goes to the police station”
Experts pointed out that the diversity of sex crime cases should be considered. Since the victims’ cases are all over the world, the response must be tailored to the victim’s will. An official at the sexual violence counseling center who requested anonymity said, “The cases of victims of sexual assault are different. Although the victims are disclosed, there are cases where the punishment is not desired. “It is important to respect the victim’s right to make decisions, such as the will and method of punishment.”
This controversy is raising the question of “what is for the victims?” On the 26th, a feminist researcher Kwon Kim Hyun-young said on Facebook on the 26th, “Stop suing the victims.” “This has nothing to do with the abolition of the guilt. “It’s not that we are going to go to the police station to grab the victim’s fate, who are trying to solve it through public institutions, not through judicial proceedings.” He said, “It is better to diversify the relief procedures to improve problem-solving skills. That’s the direction our society should go.”
Seung Jae-hyun, a research fellow at the Korea Criminal Policy Research Institute, said, “It is secondary violence that the victims consistently express their intentions that they do not want an investigation. There is” he pointed out. He said, “The abolition of parental guilty was created to prevent the perpetrator from distorting the damage by encouraging the victim to agree,” he said.
Reporter Ham Min-jung [email protected]