Suh Chan-suk, Professor of Department of Sociology, Chung-Ang University

1. The present Identity of Revelation Malicious Crime’s Suspect is criticized for its obscure criteria for publicizing identities. What is your opinion about this criticism?

Some criteria do not allow publicizing identities. It is not possible to disclose the identity of suspects when the crime is not a violent one, when the evidence is insufficient to prove the suspects to be guilty, and when disclosure of identity cannot be for the public good, etc. Publicizing identities is impossible although a crime corresponds to only one criterion among these. Also, despite the correspondence with all these criteria, the suspect’s identity will be disclosed when agreement comes out from the deliberation committee that the Korean National Police Agency holds.

Then, Identity of Revelation of Malicious Crime’s Suspect is criticized for its vague criteria: the Korean National Police Agency arbitrarily intervened since holding the deliberation commission is not necessary in the accordance with the standard. Also, there are some cases in which even the deliberation committee cannot be held such as the violent crime that occurred on a university campus in Incheon due to ambiguity of the disclosure criteria. That is why some people criticize the Identity of Revelation Malicious Crime’s Suspect

2. Do you think there can be innocent victims by Identity of Revelation of Malicious Crime’s Suspect?

Problems can emerge when a suspect is acquitted after his or her identity is disclosed. However, no other nations, even Western European nations, or the US, have more strict criteria for Identity of Revelation of Malicious Crime’s Suspect than Korea.

Then, the suspect’s family or friends can get secondary damage. So, I think relevant experts should solve this problem by considering the public good of Identity of Revelation of Malicious Crime’s Suspect people’s right to know, rising social awareness about stalking murders increasing nowadays, and more active intervention of the executive branch & the judicial branch.

3. How can the Identity of Revelation Malicious Crime’s Suspect be helpful to the public?

As I said before, social awareness of specific violent crimes can increase. Civic society can cautiously look around neighbors via publicizing the identity of the Nth Room Case or stalking like the recent Sindang Station killing[1]. Also, Educational experts can think back about the socialization process of criminals and political & judicial experts can establish policies to prevent crimes via the Identity of Revelation of Malicious Crime’s Suspect.

4. In terms of human rights protection, what the controversial issues are in the Identity of Revelation of Malicious Crime's suspect?

 It can be a controversial system in a view of human rights. I think we have to ponder between human rights, the prevention of criminals, and the public good. However, publicizing a suspect’s identity means violating their human rights. Also, it is problematic to regard most of the public’s opinions requiring Identity of Revelation of Malicious Crime’s Suspect as populism that does not consider human rights. It is victims’ trampled human rights that are the most important thing to focus on in a view of human rights. I think a system that does not produce more victims is necessary. In addition, more academic research is essential about whether Identity of Revelation of Malicious Crime’s Suspect actually brings changes in the public and prevention of criminals in the future.