Sex crimes in Korea
By Ben Brown
Owing to the recent kidnapping and murder of 10-year-old Han A-reum in the town of Tongyeong, South Gyeongsang Province, the public has been demanding greater protection from sex offenders. Public outrage has been fueled by the revelation that the prime suspect in the case, Kim Jeom-deok, is a known sex offender. The Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, each of which maintain websites with information on the whereabouts of known sex offenders, have been widely criticized because Kim was not listed on either. Apparently, he was convicted of attempted rape and assault in 2005 and neither website contains information about offenders convicted prior to 2010.
As the information on the government websites was inadequate for the purpose of warning Tongyeong residents about the felon in their midst, government officials have vowed to improve the system. The basic idea is that, by openly publishing the whereabouts of convicted sex offenders, people can protect themselves and their children from such loathsome creatures. Since the public dissemination of information on sex offenders appears to be a simple and practical means of controlling crime, these programs are politically popular. In the United States, for example, state and federal agencies have maintained freely available listings of convicted sex offenders for well over a decade.
The sex offender registries in the United States were developed in accordance with a slew of laws such as the 1994 Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offenders Registration Act, the 1996 Pam Lychner Sex Offender Tracking and Identification Act, the 1998 Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act, and the 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. This collection of legislation is best known simply as “Megan’s Law,” after a series of bills passed in the state of New Jersey and named in remembrance of 7-year-old Megan Nicole Kanka who was raped and murdered by a convicted child molester that lived near her home.
The logic behind openly listing the whereabouts of sexual predators appears sound, but empirical research has not shown the measure to be effective. A few years ago a team of researchers examined data on sex offenses in New Jersey during the decades before and after Megan’s Law was implemented and found that the law had no impact on sex crimes. In the final report released by the National Institute of Justice (www.nij.gov), the researchers noted that “Megan’s Law showed no demonstrable effect in reducing sexual re-offenses” and that “Megan’s Law has no effect on reducing the number of victims involved in sexual offenses.”
Unfortunately, other methods of tracking sexual predators have also proven to be of limited efficacy. A case in point, as reported here in The Korea Times, occurred in 2008 when the Korean government began using electronic anklets to monitor convicted sex offenders. But reports released by the Korean National Police Agency and Supreme Prosecutors’ Office show that sex crimes in Korea have continued to increase and that about half of all sex crimes in 2010 and 2011 were committed by known sex offenders.
In the U.S., the citizenry has grown weary of devising new methods of controlling carnal reprobates and begun resorting to primal social protection practices: Namely, locking sex offenders up for extended periods of time. In 2005 the state of Florida passed new legislation which mandates a minimum prison sentence of 25 years for any person convicted of sexually victimizing a child less than 12 years of age. The Florida bill, the Jessica Lunsford Act (better known simply as Jessica’s Law), was named in memory of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford who was kidnapped, raped, and murdered by a known sex offender. Since that time, more than 10 other states have passed similar laws and most remaining states are politically gravitating toward the passage of such laws.
Another new measure is civil commitment proceedings. Many states have had civil commitment laws in effect for years, but these laws have only recently been used to curb venereal depravity. In cases involving offenders convicted of sex crimes, the civil commitment process begins before a convict is scheduled to complete a court ordered prison sentence. If the courts find reason to believe that a convicted sex offender poses a danger to society, upon release from prison the offender is ordered into a secure psychiatric facility for treatment and compelled to continue treatment until he is no longer considered a threat.
Although the forced exile of wanton degenerates into correctional and mental institutions for prolonged periods of time has considerable public support, such measures are not cheap. Political rhetoric about getting “tough on crime” plays well at the ballot box, but faced with budget shortfalls incurred since the economic meltdown of 2008 a number of state government officials have questioned whether they can finance long-term incarceration or psychiatric treatment of sex offenders. In short, controlling sexual predators is a difficult task. While I certainly hope we may one day find an effective means of reducing sex crimes, I fear that day is a long way off.
Ben Brown is a professor of criminal justice at The University of Texas at Brownsville and an adjunct professor in the International Summer Campus program at Korea University.