A STABBING incident in Sillim-dong in July, 2023 created a domino effect of copycat crimes all over the nation that targeted many unspecified people. Affairs of bloodshed were followed by tributes to the innocent victims and the online murder threats that promised stabbing attacks, whether verifiable or misguided, created an air of anxiety[1]. This brought much attention to the disclosure of criminal suspects’ personal information which remains at the center of the debates in Korea. While suspects’ identification (ID) pictures are released in cases of particularly violent crimes, the voices of dissent are calling for legislative change that mandates releasing suspects’ mugshots[2].

The current status of the act on disclosing criminal suspect’s information

In South Korea, the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific Violent Crimes strictly stipulates the regulations regarding the disclosure of a criminal suspect's identity. These regulations are constructed around Article 8-2 which can only be operated if all the following clauses are fulfilled: "1. It shall be a specific violent crime which has been committed in a cruel way and has brought major damage; 2. Sufficient evidence shall exist to prove that a criminal suspect has committed such crime; 3. Disclosure shall be required for the public good only, such as the guarantee of the people’s right to know, the prevention of recidivism by a criminal suspect and the prevention of crimes; 4. A criminal suspect shall not be a juvenile referred to in subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Juvenile Protection Act[3]."

Based on this act, the National Police Agency follows the guidelines for disclosing the face and identity of suspects in violent crimes. The decision-making process for ID disclosure requires a voting procedure by the Disclosure of Personal Information Committee for cases that have great social repercussions and receive national attention[4]. This voting procedure, however, may skew the fairness of the system because the decision-making authority figures in the committee change according to the different issues. This may eventually lead to inconsistent standards in making judgements[5]. 

The abstract language in the four mandatory clauses is also pointed out as a major problem. For instance, the gravity of “severe crime” is a subjective notion that can be easily swayed by different standards. Furthermore, the requirement of “sufficient evidence” does not specify the precise quantity or quality of the evidence, which again leaves room for interpretation[5]. 

Even after disclosure is granted, the release of a mugshot requires consent from the suspect since no clause detailing explicit permission to release mugshots is provided in the current Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific Violent Crimes. This has led to disclosure of suspects’ mugshots on only selective cases. For instance, the mugshots of both the suspects of the knife attacks at Sillim and Seohyeon station could not be released due to the suspects’ refusals, raising doubts about the effectiveness of ID disclosure. While the press is permitted to take pictures when suspects go to the court during investigations to determine the validity of warrants, no measures can be taken if suspects cover their faces[1]. 

Controversy behind the disclosure of suspects’ personal information

The public is overwhelmingly in support of broadening the applications of ID disclosure specified in the Act for violent crimes. According to a citizen panel survey conducted by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, 96.3% of the 7,474 respondents supported expanding the scope of ID disclosure and 95.5% advocated the release of mugshots without the necessity of consent from suspects[6]. 

The public's strong sentiments for legalizing the non-consensual release of suspects’ mugshots were also evident in the Sillim-dong stabbing incident. On July 26, the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency released the suspect’s face of a knife attack in Sillim-dong via an ID picture. The ID picture, however, was criticized for being too distant from the real appearance and fails to capture the realistic physique of the criminal[2]. This is not the first in recent months that this has been a subject of debate. The release of the ID picture of 23-year-old Jeong Yu-jeong, who brutally murdered a victim and carried the corpse in a suitcase on May 26, 2023, was also criticized, for not even her high school peer could recognize her[1].

Also, the issue revolving around the subjective and inconsistent standards for deciding whether to permit ID disclosure has been consistently arising due to the systemic problems of the current system. For instance, despite fulfilling the criteria of a violent crime, ID disclosure was permitted for selective cases such as Lee Kyeong-woo, who is the suspect of a kidnap-and-murder case in Gangnam that occurred on April, 2023, and Lee Ki-young, who killed his girlfriend and a taxi driver in December, 2022. Meanwhile, the suspects' IDs in the Jeong-in incident that involved torturing a 17-month-old baby to death in October, 2020 and a murder case involving dismemberment in December, 2020 were not released. According to the studies conducted by the Police Science Institute on the determinants for suspects' IDs disclosure, the more online comments an article receives, the more likely it is that the suspect’s ID is disclosed[5]. 

The arguments for and against

Strong arguments, both for and against the disclosure of suspects’ identities, have been raised since the proposal of legal basis for the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific Violent Crimes. 

The advocates urge for disclosure, expounding that the importance of the public's right to know and crime prevention outweigh suspects’ personal rights. The rights of the multitudes must be favored over the individual's rights. Also, the advocates emphasize that disclosure greatly helps the investigation process in case the crimes are re-committed by the same suspect. Releasing a photo of suspects’ faces and showing their physiques will potentially allow witnesses to come forward with any information they have about the suspect.

Also, the core argument lies in the matter of portrait rights. Advocates contend that the suspect who is in the spotlight should be regarded as a public figure and, therefore, is no longer qualified for the protection of privacy of portrait rights. The exposure of suspects’ faces appropriately accommodates the public's interests and needs[4]. 

The voices of opponents of the disclosure of suspects’ identities argue for the protection of the rights of the suspects’ families pursuant to Article 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. The article articulates, “No citizen shall suffer unfavorable treatment on account of an act not of his/her own doing but committed by a relative[3].” However, if the disclosure of criminal suspects’ personal information is officially permitted, their families and relatives will almost certainly suffer from the glare of the public[4].

Furthermore, the opponents question the validity of disclosing suspects’ identities when they are still in the process of investigation and have not yet been judged to be guilty with certainty. This violates the principle of the presumption of innocence and unethically encroaches the suspects’ privacy rights. Thus, opponents believe that the identities of suspects should not be classified as public information[4]. 

On Jan. 16, 2023, the amendment for the current Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of SpeOcific Violent Crimes has been proposed to stipulate release of the suspect's photo that is taken within a month[4]. While discussions are still underway, a wave of public approval for disclosing suspects’ identities suggests the prospect of strengthening and enlarging the application of the aforementioned act. Yet, it still remains of paramount importance to carefully balance the interests of both parties for the way forward. 

[1] The Dong-a Ilbo

[2] YTN

[3] Constitution of the Republic of Korea

[4] Press Arbitration Commission 

[5] MBN

[6] Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission