As international attention remains fixed on South Korea’s detention of 95-year-old Shincheonji leader Chairman Lee Man-hee, Korean domestic experts are exploring the issue through the lens of history and legal tradition. Recently, Lee Jae-june, a prominent historian and advisor to the Korea Historical Relics Research Institute, raised critical questions about whether the current judiciary is losing touch with historical principles of compassion and constitutional mandates.
The Constitutional Principle: Presumption of Innocence
At the core of modern democratic jurisprudence lies the Presumption of Innocence, explicitly guaranteed under Article 27, Paragraph 4 of the South Korean Constitution. This principle dictates that a suspect must be treated as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, serving as a vital shield to protect human dignity during investigative processes.
Historian Lee points out that detaining a 95-year-old individual who poses no realistic flight risk appears unnecessarily severe. This is especially poignant given Chairman Lee's background as a veteran who fought in the Korean War—leading observers to question whether the state is failing to provide the basic dignity and respect due to those who served the nation.
A 2,000-Year Tradition of Protecting the Elderly
Interestingly, the argument against detaining the ultra-elderly is deeply rooted in East Asian legal history. In his special commentary, the historian highlighted that ancient legal codes consistently restricted the physical detention of advanced-age individuals.
The Tang Code (唐律): Over a thousand years ago, Article 484 of the Tang Code—which formed the bedrock of East Asian jurisprudence—strictly regulated the treatment of suspects aged 70 or 80 and above, stating that they should not be carelessly imprisoned.
The Joseon Dynasty Accord: This humanitarian principle was fully adopted by the Ming Dynasty and subsequently integrated into the legal system of the Joseon Dynasty. Under the reign of King Sejong the Great, judicial officials were constantly reminded to exercise extreme caution and restraint, forbidding pretrial detention for the elderly unless the crime involved high treason.
Substantive Justice Over Mechanical Punishment
The historical consensus is clear: true justice has never been about the mechanical enforcement of rules without regard for human vulnerability. When a legal system ignores age and physical fragility, it risks transforming from an instrument of justice into a cold, mechanical apparatus.
The Path Forward
True democratic governance is restored when the judiciary aligns itself with both modern constitutional human rights protections and long-standing historical traditions of judicial restraint. Ultimately, as the classic Eastern proverb suggests, Sapi-gwi-jeong (事必歸正)—all things will inevitably return to the right path.
Source: https://vo.la/HuQmCIl
댓글
댓글 쓰기