[더 파이브: The 5] Explanatory note on ‘standards for forcible molestation’ changed for the first time in 40 years
Getty Image Bank
‘We don’t have time or interest!’ We prepared this for you who are busy with this life and don’t have time to watch the news. We included 5 questions about news that the news doesn’t tell you and news that you become more curious about the more you look at it. The 5 asks and the reporter answers. ▶▶Subscribe to weekly newsletter Whitley Type ‘Wickley’ in the search bar. On the 21st of last month, the Supreme Court introduced new standards for judging the crime of forcible harassment. If the perpetrator physically assaulted the person or said words that caused fear and then committed the act, the crime of forcible harassment is established. For the first time in 40 years, the standard for punishment for forcible molestation was changed only when the perpetrator assaulted or threatened the victim to the extent that it was ‘difficult to resist’. Will all perpetrators of molestation now be found guilty of forcible molestation? Are you saying that when the court judges the crime of rape, it does not ask whether the victim resisted to the point of death? We asked Social Affairs reporter Oh Yeon-seo.
[The 1] What specifically will change if the Supreme Court changes the standards? Reporter Oh Yeon-seo: Until now, in order for a crime of forcible harassment to be established, the level of violence or intimidation by the perpetrator had to be at a level that made it difficult for the victim to resist. From now on, we will not consider whether the level of violence and intimidation was such that it was difficult for the victim to resist. This means that if you assaulted and threatened someone and then committed an indecent act, you will be charged with a crime. For example, in the past, in a case where the defendant was drunk and tried to touch the victim’s breasts, the court found him not guilty on the grounds that “the victim did not ask for help even though he could have done so.” It means I should have resisted more. I won’t do this anymore. However, the same holds true that for a crime of forcible harassment to be committed, the perpetrator must have assaulted or threatened. In reality, more indecent assaults without assault or threats are taking place, so it appears that there will be a large gap in punishment in the future.
[The 2] At what level of assault or intimidation must the perpetrator be punished for forcible harassment? Reporter Oh Yeon-seo: When it comes to assault, there is a considerable amount of precedent that determines whether someone is guilty or not guilty of general assault. I think we will follow that standard. Goseong is also considered assault. In the case of threats, it is important whether the victim felt fear. This too is as abstract as considering whether the victim’s resistance was difficult. However, the court seems to believe that there will be little confusion due to the accumulated precedents on the crime of intimidation.
Supreme Court justices are sitting in the Supreme Court bench in Seocho-gu, Seoul on the 21st. Provided by Supreme Court
[The 3] Now, the victim has to prove that he ‘felt fear when he was threatened’ instead of ‘he resisted to the point of embarrassment.’ Won’t you be a secondary victim in the process? Reporter Oh Yeon-seo: There may be such concerns. However, it must be said that it is virtually difficult to completely exclude the victim’s statement when judging the crime. What is clear is that proving that I was in a situation where resistance was difficult and proving that I felt fear are definitely different. During the investigation and trial process, the likelihood that victims will be asked to act like victims or suffer secondary damage will likely decrease.
[The 4] Even when judging a crime of rape, they ask whether the victim resisted to the point of death. Are those standards also changing? Reporter Oh Yeon-seo: It won’t change. Until now, the court has examined whether the perpetrator’s violence or threats were so strong that it would have been significantly difficult for the victim to resist when being raped. They imposed stricter standards than the crime of forcible molestation. Since this Supreme Court ruling only applies to the crime of forcible molestation, the crime of rape must be judged separately. Of course, like the crime of forcible molestation, the crime of rape is also punished more severely in the first and second trials. In the past, a person was found not guilty for pressing on the victim’s shoulder or body, but these days, even this case is judged guilty. It may take time, but I think the standards for judging rape will eventually change.
[The 5] The standards for both forcible molestation and rape are complex. Can’t we simply judge whether the victim gave consent or not? Reporter Oh Yeon-seo: The women’s community has argued that molestation or rape without the victim’s consent should be punished. In fact, in this ruling, Justice Noh Jeong-hee issued a minority opinion for the first time, saying, “Major countries around the world are changing from demanding ‘resistance’ to victims’ ‘lack of consent.’” This means that the perpetrator must be held accountable for the crime with or without the victim’s consent. However, the Supreme Court drew the line that the purpose of this ruling was not to recognize the crime of non-consensual molestation. Currently, the criminal law stipulates that assault and threats are prerequisites for the crime of forcible molestation, so the trial must be conducted within that scope. Considering the victim’s consent means that the National Assembly must amend or create a new law. ▶▶[The 5]Read all about the reasons for the change in standards for forcible harassment and the government’s position, which were not fully included in Whiakley. ▶▶Subscribe to weekly newsletter Whitley
Reporter Ha Eo-young haha@hani.co.kr
2023-10-07 05:00:24
#dont #agree
