Police vs. prosecution

Restore popular trust first to law enforcement system

Fights between public prosecutors and police officers over investigative power have long ceased to be news here.

Still the tit-for-tat between the nation’s top law enforcement officials went way too far Thursday. Hours after the nation’s top police officer ordered his men to ``stake their claims” on defending investigative rights, some prosecutors described the remark as befitting a Mafia boss. When it comes to a turf war, these officials seem to be little better than the targets of their crackdowns.

Reigniting the decade-long conflict were some lawmakers’ moves to enhance the prosecution’s command of the police, as part of the ongoing judicial reform.

We agree that stricter supervision of the police is necessary. It was only a few months ago that police caused a stir by the alleged torture of suspects, evoking grim memories of the dictatorial days. Statistics also show that despite a decline in rallies and demonstrations, the number of reckless arrests and releases by police sharply increased last year.

The problem is the abuses and misuses of investigative power by prosecutors are as outrageous as, if not more than, those of the police. Experts say Korean prosecutors’ power is unique in the world, as the nation concentrates on rights to investigate, indict and request arrest warrants in one institution. And such unchecked power has led to ceaseless controversy about inhumane treatment of suspects on the one hand, and its excessive politicization and corruption on the other.

Too many suspects, ranging from former President Roh Moo-hyun down to a nameless local administration division chief, killed themselves during or after probes by the prosecution. The politicized prosecutors were weak to ``live power” as shown by a series of wrist-slaps on people close to President Lee Myung-bak suspected of corruption. The top law enforcement organ is also extremely lenient in punishing its own members who received luxury sedans and even sexual services from potential law breakers.

So much so that many people have come to equate judicial reform with the overhaul of the prosecution. But having police check the prosecution doesn’t seem a good idea, in part because of their traditional relationship and because two institutions have similar problems.

What has hindered the prosecution’s reform the most has been the ruling elite’s needs to use it for political purposes while they remain in power.

The single most important thing in this task, as in most other matters in this country of imperial presidency, is the will of the chief executive. President Lee and his Grand National Party need to take the lead in introducing proper checks and balances in the law enforcement sector. They can either restrict the prosecution’s role for indictments, introduce an election system for regional prosecutors or set up an agency exclusively responsible for investigating those in power, including lawmakers, judges and prosecutors, as they do in many advanced countries. Opposition parties should of course actively cooperate in such efforts.

This is too high a bar to reach. But nothing less would restore popular trust to the nation’s law enforcement system.