Prosecution reform
Time to get tougher with corrupt prosecutors
The opposition has rolled up its sleeves to try and reform the prosecution. In a National Assembly speech Thursday, Rep. Park Jie-won, floor leader of the opposition Democratic Party, said action was necessary for the protection of human rights of all people.
He claimed that former President Roh Moo-hyun was the victim of political retribution engineered by the prosecution. He criticized the prosecution for indicting former Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook for taking bribes. Han was later acquitted. He said the prosecution should no longer pick out specific figures, mostly those from the previous administration, for political vendettas.
He said the prosecution was not prudent in investigating journalists, program directors and government employees critical of the incumbent administration. He pointed out arbitrary investigation is a clear infringement of human rights and suppression of freedom of speech.
He said few would trust the investigation results of the sponsored prosecutors. He urged the governing party to join in naming a special counsel to reinvestigate the case without any preconditions. The opposition also demanded political neutrality of the prosecution, their exercise of indictment power within legal limits and a ban on the leakage of unconfirmed allegations before indictment.
The opposition's offensive came after the prosecution announced the results of its 49-day internal audit of its members suspected of receiving entertainment and sex services and taking cash from a CEO of a Busan-based construction company.
The panel proposed warning, demoting and disciplining the 45 prosecutors. No one will face criminal punishment. It acknowledged some prosecutors enjoyed corporate patronage but denied the face that what they were provided with is actually what made them criminal suspects. It confirmed a senior prosecutor had sex with a prostitute but he denied favors to the CEO.
The announcement showed that prosecutors have limits in regulating themselves on their own. The prosecution showed double standards of being lenient on themselves and harsh on others.
The team confirmed that prosecutors have ignored an appeal from the CEO who provided the sponsorship. It said it was unable to cross-examine the CEO to verify the allegations. It pointed out difficulties in criminalizing them because much of the sponsorship took place a long time ago. It cited the statue of limitations for its inability to indict the benefactors.
Why were they so lenient? In the past, we may recall many politically-oriented corruption scandals. The prosecution indicted many of the big figures it targeted for the dubious crimes of which the statute of limitations has lapsed. The prosecution will face a double humiliation when the independent counsel indicts many of those implicated in unethical and illegal sponsorships. The governing party will get public support when it accepts an opposition call for naming a special counsel for reinvestigation. This is not the first time that corruption scandals marred the prosecution. Whenever such scandals took place, the prosecution took cosmetic remedial action.
Reforming the prosecution is necessary for its own good. Prosecutors will be unable to pursue their assigned duty of tracing criminal suspects without the respect and the trust of the people.