As of 2020, the death penalty in South Korea totaled 60. However, the death
penalty is increasingly becoming officially abolished or suspended worldwide,
with the South Korean government also voting in favor o f the "death penalty
moratorium" resolution at the U.N. General Assembly's 3rd Committee. The
Constitutional Court also showed conciliatory stance on the abolition of capital
punishment in its two previous unconstitutional rulings in 1996 and 2010,
respectively. On the other hand, the general public's opinion on the death penalty
is the majority. In particular, in the case o f general public opinion, individual
issues at the time of the research and investigation are affected. However, public
opinion was also high in favor of the abolition of the death penalty, which is
based on alternatives such as absolute life imprisonment and punitive damages.

A 2018 study by Gallup Korea and the National Human Rights Commission of
Korea on the death penalty shows the need to devise appropriate alternative
punishments in forming a consensus on the abolition of the death penalty.
Such changes in the environment surrounding the death penalty show the
need to deal with the possibility of a change in the death penalty. Thus, this
study explores the forms of legislative action and possible alternative punishment
to be taken after the abolition of capital punishment. To this end, we first looked
at the actual state of our death penalty through the laws, statistics, and related
literature of the death penalty in Korea and looked at the legal form. Specifically,
various statistics on the death penalty confirmed by the death penalty were
presented by categorizing laws and clauses including the death penalty in order
to understand the current status of the death penalty in Korea. First of all, the
punishment o f death penalty is v ario usly d efined i n our l aw. Therefore, it i s
necessary to analyze t he l aws that s tipulate t he d eath p enalty, the law that
stipulates the death penalty, the law that stipulates the death penalty, and the
sentencing and procedure o f the death penalty. They were divided into laws that
stipulate the death penalty as a result of fi murder or death, fi laws that stipulate
the death penalty due to special circumstances, fi laws that stipulate general
regulations, treatment and procedures for death penalty, and fi the only legal
punishment.

Subsequently, statistics on the death penalty and those confirmed to be
executed showed the actual conditions of the death penalty in Korea. Of the
total 60 confirmed death row inmates, 54 out o f 56 were middle-aged and elderly
people in their 40s or older, with the exception of four held in military prisons,
apparently affected by the prolonged period of detention, an average of April
19. Since 1998, five people have committed suicide and six have been sick. All
death-defining people were sentenced to death for life-infringing crimes. The
mo st frequent crimes i n the applicable l aw include murder (31), robbery (20),
and sexual assault (12). When it came to living alone, 32 people were choosing
to live alone and 18 were leaving the station. The death penalty confirmers were
all religious and maintained some or all of their family, relatives, and
acquaintances, except for the four. 37 of them protested against mental and
physical disabilities and four of them
filed a retrial, and four of them tried to
flee once each.
Although there are various discussions on alternative punishment after the
abolition of the death penalty, it can be divided into two main categories
depending on the type of punishment. The first is life imprisonment, and the
second i s organic freestyle, which has an upper limit but h as a longer prison
time than conventional organic freestyle. Countries that have introduced the
former life imprisonment can be divided into countries that have introduced
relative life imprisonment and countries that have introduced absolute life
imprisonment. It can be significant that countries without punishment with
irregularities, the biggest attribute of life imprisonment by introducing organic
free sentences, are relatively guaranteeing their return to society for prisoners.

Among the countries that replaced the death penalty with life imprisonment
are Germany, Britain, France, Turkey, Mongolia, Russia, Italy, Poland, Switzerland,
Denmark, Finland, Austria, Belgium, Sweden, Ireland, Hungary and Romania,
while the Netherlands and the Philippines have replaced the death penalty with
absolute life imprisonment. Spain, Norway, Croatia and Portugal have replaced
the death penalty with organic free sentences, not life imprisonment.
On the other hand, legislative precedents can also be found to reduce death
sentences and executions by maintaining the death penalty while operating life
imprisonment, abandonment, or weapons-free sentences. This is not technically
considered an abolition of the death penalty, but it may function as a way to
gradually abolish the death penalty, partly in the form of replacing the death
penalty. Belarus has a life sentence and Bangladesh has a life sentence. In
addition, China, which maintains the death penalty while applying free sentences,
has set up a system that allows those sentenced to a suspended death sentence
to be reduced to life imprisonment or abandoned imprisonment if they do not
intentionally commit c rimes. The death penalty i s thought t o be a "transitional
death penalty" system that serves to reduce the number of people who will be
executed and satisfies both the dignity of the death penalty and public sentiment.

The United States is a country that can compare and analyze the patterns of
various death penalty and life imprisonment systems operated by the federal
government and 50 states. Part 2 analyzes the current status of the United States,
which actively utilizes the death penalty and life imprisonment, and accumulated
empirical research data, and studies the limitations of the death penalty and the
possibility of life imprisonment as an alternative punishment.
Chapter 2 In the United States, the current status of capital punishment was
reviewed by the federal and state governments. The death penalty in the United
States began in the 1600s and was most actively used in the early and mid 1900s,
but it marked a turning point in 1972 when the Supreme Court ruled that Furman
v. Georgia was unconstitutional. Federal and states have suspended the operation
of existing death penalty and have prepared for the introduction of new death
penalty. The 1976 Gregg v. Georgia ruling allowed the Supreme Court to recognize
the constitutionality of the death penalty, which ruled out randomness and
tightened procedural requirements, with each state government reintroducing a
new death penalty that reflects the ruling.

The United States is classified as a country that operates and enforces capital
punishment around the world, but the number of death sentences in the United
States h as been o n a steady declines in t he 2000s, and only double-digit
sentences have been made in the 2010s. In terms of enforcement, a total of 1,524
cases have been made since 1976, compared to a continuous decrease since the
2000s, with only 14 cases have been implemented in 2020.
The death penalty in the United States is mainly administered and enforced
at the state level. The federal government only reintroduced the death penalty
in 1988 after the 1972 ruling, and only three executions have since been made.
However, it is still uncertain whether the execution will continue, although the
execution will continue, with three executions again in 17 years in 2020. As of
2020, 29 out of 50 states have been on death row, but Oregon, Pennsylvania
and California have temporarily suspended executions. On the other hand, states
that abolish capital punishment are on the rise. The death penalty was abolished
in Delaware in 2016, Washington in 2018, New Hampshire in 2019, and Colorado
in 2020. This chapter summarizes the history and characteristics of each state's
death penalty.

Chapter 3 looks at life imprisonment in the United States. In the U.S., the
life imprisonment system is actively operated, with nearly one in every nine
inmates as of 2016. In particular, the demand is on the rise as a punishment
to replace the death penalty in the culture o f severe punishment. I n this
discussion, the current status, function, and problems of each type of life
imprisonment were identified by classifying the types of life imprisonment as
non- paroleable and life imprisonment eligible for parole based on the possibility
of return to society.

As of 2020, 49 states, excluding Alaska, have been serving life imprisonment
without parole, which means complete isolation from society. Of these, 37 are
states introduced since the 1980s. The increase in demand for life imprisonment
without parole as an alternative t o severe punishment or death penalty is steep.
However, i t is difficult to achieve the purpose of enlightenment due to the absence
of parole, and the legal rights guarantee is insufficient compared to the severity
of the punishment. Above all, they are not free from the issue of
unconstitutionality based on human dignity and values, just like the death penalty.
On the other hand, life imprisonment with parole is more moderate than life
imprisonment without parole, but the total number of people is twice as high
as life imprisonment without parole. Excluding Alaska and South Dakota, 48 states
operate parole-enabled life sentences, typically giving inmates at least 15 years
in prison time an opportunity to review parole. However, it is criticized that
the systemality requested to operate the parole system is insufficient, and that
the conditions for parole can become strict due to political influence under stern
punishment, which can lead to difficulty in parole.

Chapter 4 identifies the limitations of the death penalty and examines the
effectiveness of life imprisonment as an alternative punishment. As the history
of the abolition and reintroduction of capital punishment states, the U.S. has
also experienced the problem of unconstitutionality. Discussions have been made
on the abolition of capital punishment as the main basis for human dignity and
values, judicial errors and the possibility of life recovery, whether it is subordinate,
racism, and economic burden. In particular, in the United States, in addition
to the discussion of value-judgment abolition, the characteristics of strong
abolition claims in terms of penal effectiveness and economic costs can be
identified through various empirical studies.

Life imprisonment does not amount to death, but it serves as a severe
punishment and guarantees certain risks. However, it is confirmed that there is
no special judicial process such as the death penalty, and that the criminal law
in which the p lea bargaining system is operated has a high posibility of
misjudgment, and the economic cost of long-term detention is also significant.
Therefore, it is necessary to carefully consider procedural supplementation and
corrective operation problems to function as a punishment to replace the death
penalty. I n particular, despite the high public support and increased demand
for the non- parole life sentence system, abnormal problems are more prominent,
problems of unconstitutionality and effectiveness are raised, and criticism is
increasing that it is not appropriate for alternative punishment.

Chapter 5 analyzed t he implications of our law based o n the results o f a
discussion review i n the United States. First of all, it is requested that Korea
secure various forms of fact-finding data accumulated for a long time like the
U.S. and conduct empirical research based on it. Beyond the stage of discussion

on the abolition of the value-judgment death penalty, efforts are called for to
confirm the appearance and effectiveness of the death penalty as an actual
system. For this purpose, accumulation of government-level statistical data.
Second, it is necessary to specifically seek a life sentence as an alternative
punishment. In general, life imprisonment without parole is preferred as an
alternative to capital punishment, but life imprisonment without parole has been
confirmed by the case of the United States, which again suffers from the same
unconstitutionality as the death penalty. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate to
prevent unnecessary social confusion and adopt paroleable life imprisonment as
the ultimate alternative t o the death penalty. However, it is requested t o find
ways to supplement the problems, including the current parole process.
Finally, raising public awareness is essential for the introduction of alternative
punishment. It is necessary to resolve the gap between reality and perception
related to life imprisonment and win support for the need to introduce alternative
punishment.

Part 3 highlighted the progress of the European death penalty in individual
countries and looked at the state and state of life imprisonment as the main
punishment for replacing its status.
Specifically divided into two chapters, Chapter 1 first identifies the terms o f
the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and the Sixth Additional
Protocol and the 13th Additional Protocol, which were important grounds for
the 47-nation European Council's initiative in the provisions set forth in the
European Union's Charter. In addition, international standards such as the United
Nations Convention on the Elimination of Death Penalty and the current status
of the European Council's related international conventions were reviewed, and
the status of the abolition of capital by 46 countries, including Armenia, Russia
in the moratorium o n long-term executions, and Belarus.

International norms related to the abolition of capital punishment have been
established at the United Nations level and at the regional level, respectively.
In particular, in the case of Europe, the process of joining, approving, and
ratifying international norms has been implemented, and in time, the United
Nations has given the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a set of international
norms and a basic policy regarding restrictions. However, from a practical point
of view, it can be confirmed that the European Council's decision was preceded
by a series of implementations to remove capital punishment from lower criminal
codes, including the constitution of individual countries.

The abolition of capital punishment in Europe has progressed with two decisive
opportunities. The first full-fledged attempt came after the end of World War
II. Of course, some countries have already abolished capital punishment before
the war (Portugal, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, etc.) or during the war
(Switzerland, Sweden, etc.). However, the reaction to the neglect of life and the
everydayization of murder experienced in World War II brought about a
significant change in the perception of the death penalty in the region. In other
words, a shift in perception that approving human dignity based on the right
of life as the most absolute value was the reason for the nation's existence and
the fundamental approach to recovering the wounds of war could connect Europe
as a consensus. In particular, if you look at the background of the abolition
of the death penalty in Germany and Italy, which are considered to be parties
to World War II, this analysis adds to the conviction.

By the late 1980s, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the succession
of Eastern European countries forming ideological solidarity under authoritarian
regimes, the death penalty in Europe was transformed again. The death penalty,
which was the highest form of the old system, was not a tool to effectively defend
society from crime, but rather was appropriated as a means of keeping the
opposition to the system in check, reflection and awareness of it served as decisive
clues to eliminate the death penalty system. In addition, countries that have been
involved in the European Community, the European Council, were forced to join
the ranks of the abolition of capital punishment despite internal opposition to
ensure their rights and status. In the 2000s, members of the European Council,
who joined the abolitionist state, abolished the death penalty without going
through a political process (consensus) that generally led to internal consensus.
There are certain exceptions to the European process of abolishing capital
punishment, but there is usually a formal pattern o f suspending o r suspending
normal executions and then suspending or suspending wartime executions after
a process leading to legal repeal. It also declares that the constitution of member
states of the European Council explicitly prohibits or abolishes capital
punishment, and emphasizes the dignity and protection of human rights at the
constitutional level.

In 1949, the Council of Europe was created to share the principles of law
control, respect for human rights, and democracy on the continent. The European
Convention on the Protection of Human Rights, the cornerstone of the European
Council, was adopted in 1950, which states that everyone's life is protected by
law and that no one should be deprived of life. However, the treaty allowed the
imposition of capital punishment under law. It has been since the 1980s that
the European Council defined the death penalty as a grave violation of human
rights and became a precursor to its abolition. In 1982, with the adoption of
the Sixth Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of European
Human Rights, members of the Council of Europe jointly approved the first legally
binding convention to abolish the peacetime death penalty, which is now ratified
by 46 of the European Council's 47 member states. Russia, the only exception,
has reached the stage of its ratification, and since 1989 the abolition of the death
penalty has become a prerequisite for all countries seeking to become new
members of the Council. The provisional moratorium on capital punishment led
to the adoption of the 13th Additional Protocol to the Convention on the
Protection of Human Rights in 2002, spreading the phase of complete abolition
of capital punishment across Europe, including wartime operations.

In particular, members of the European Union (EU), which plays a key role
among members of the European Council, are taking the initiative against capital
punishment on a global level as well as in the region. The European Union
Charter, which was established in 2000 and became legally binding on 1 December
2009, explicitly states this will. As a result, all countries belonging to the Council
of Europe that hope and hope to join the European Union are bound to abolish
the death penalty in the future. Except for Russia, which has implemented a
10-year moratorium on executions since 2009, no member of the European
Council has sentenced or executed the death penalty since 2005. It was not just
a temporary or temporary change in the local community called the European
Council, nor a temporary change in the traditional criminal policy of punishing
those who commit atrocious crimes on a punitive or preventive level, nor was
it the result of a conscious movement achieved as a result of long effort. It i s
not surprising that the European Council has routinely been the centerpiece of
the abolition of capital punishment in Europe, having been in the lead for more
than 25 years to promote and integrate these values. They will not give up their
role in continuing to demand and monitor the abolition of capital punishment
for other parts of human society that still maintain the death penalty.

Chapter 2 deals with the analysis of punishments that have replaced the
position in the list of punishments in individual countries since the death penalty
was abolished, and based on this, the implications of Korea are reviewed.
The Council of Europe has made recommendations for long-term and parole
for member states, and has also stated the standard principles for the treatment
and management of life imprisonment. Prior to a detailed study of the operation
of life imprisonment by country, this literature classified the types of life
imprisonment as legal and de facto life imprisonment, and compared the life
imprisonment trends based on empirical statistics on the population of 100,000
members of the European Council.

The European Council's life imprisonment was reviewed in major countries,
other countries, and in major European Council countries, life imprisonment in
10 countries, including Britain, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, the Netherlands,
Sweden, Spain, Russia, and Turkey. In particular, the UK, France, Germany, and
Austria considered the criminal requirements for life imprisonment. In the case
of Britain, Italy, Russia and Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights
summarized the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on life
imprisonment of the country concerned. In addition, life imprisonment in the
European Parliament states the outline of life imprisonment in 28 member states,
from Albania to Ukraine, as well as the possibility of release, and the statutory
punishment o f murder b y country by country. O f the 28 countries, Bulgaria,
Cyprus, Hungary and Slovakia were a dded to the European Court o f Human
Rights' review of life imprisonment for those countries. In eight council-free
states, including Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Republic,
Montenegro, Norway, Iceland and Portugal, the court martial was reviewed for
the possibility of freedom and murder.

In summary, life imprisonment in 34 countries (72.3%) except for 9 countries
(19.1%) that do not have life imprisonment at all among the 47 European Council
members subject to analysis showed national differences in standards of parole
and minimum detention period and post parole. However, while 23 countries
(48.9 percent) have life imprisonment guaranteed in full form, 11 countries (23.4
percent) have both life imprisonment and life imprisonment without parole. In
contrast, only 8.5 percent of the four countries do not allow parole. Accordingly,
15 out of 38 countries have life imprisonment that does not allow parole (39.5%)
and 23 countries have life imprisonment that allows purely parole (60.5%).
As we have seen, the concept and criteria for life imprisonment at the national
level throughout Europe vary. In some countries, life imprisonment is a factor
that means " lifetime." Most countries, however, h ave a sentence t hat means
indefinite imprisonment, but this does not mean that the prisoner will be detained
until the end of his or her life, but maintains that the crucial goal of rehabilitating
a criminal, the basis of the free sentence, should also be carried out in a sentence
called life imprisonment.

In addition, these countries generally seek to improve the life imprisonment
system in such a way as to allow legally controlled parole combined with
legitimate procedures by revising relevant laws, such as criminal law.


Chapter 1 aims to present implications for our laws based on the previous
comparative legal considerations. A series of trends in the United States and
Europe pointed to the question of the inhumanity of absolute life imprisonment
under certain conditions, indicating a gradual progression to relative life
imprisonment, namely paroleable life imprisonment.
Chapter 2 presented the current status of eight special bills for the abolition
of capital punishment, which were proposed in Korea, and analyzed each bill.
Lee Sang-minan, Kim Boo-kyum-an, and Yoo In-taean are replacing the
maximum legal sentence with life imprisonment, which is impossible to parole
under the Criminal Act. "Jusung Young-an" also replaced the maximum legal
sentence with life imprisonment, which is impossible to parole, pardon, sentence,
or reinstatement, and "Park Sun-young-an" proposes life imprisonment without
parole, general pardon, special pardon, or sentence. These five proposals offer
absolute life imprisonment. On the other hand, the 'Chung Dae-chul' proposed
a relative life sentence, which replaced the death penalty with life imprisonment,
and the 'Jae Jae-gun' replaced the death penalty with life imprisonment. All eight
proposals have replaced previously confirmed prisoners of death with fixed
sentences of alternative types. In the case of absolute life imprisonment, it is
possible to change the fixed sentence retroactively, but in the case of the
Jeongdae-chul and Yoo Jae-gun, there will be a problem of equity with existing
life imprisonment. In addition, the treatment of death penaltyers will change
dramatically when a parole-enabled punishment is established, as the treatment
of death penalty is basically not considered for parole is not considered for parole.

Chapter 3 intended to present the appropriate types of alternative punishment
through discussion of domestic alternative punishment. Absolute life
imprisonment is a punishment that excludes the possibility of parole of criminals
and permanently isolates them from society. Absolute life imprisonment can meet
social defense functions and people's feelings of retribution and can be adopted
as a transitional method for the abolition of death penalty, but it is criticized
for violating the dignity of inmates and failing to perform special prevention
and reintegration functions. Relative life imprisonment does not set a prison term,
but it is life imprisonment that can be parole if certain conditions differentiate
from the current parole requirements are met. This is considered an interim
alternative to current life imprisonment and absolute life imprisonment.
Among the inorganic types a re the " special weapons free-form system" with
20 years of parole date, or the "medical-weapons" with stricter requirements for
parole, which are not much different from relative life imprisonment. Among
the measures to revise the organic type that can replace the death penalty are
the abolition of the upper limit of organic prison and the introduction of
"accelerated organic type" or "absolute organic type." The suspended death penalty
refers t o a system in which inmates are reviewed to change the type of punishment
to life imprisonment or remain suspended after the death penalty is sentenced.
Critics, however, say that the difference between the weapon types that can be
released and reduced on parole is ambiguous.

Considering all the discussions at home and abroad, it can be confirmed that
the form of alternative punishment after the abolition of the death penalty should
not be an absolute life sentence that violates human dignity, but rather a relative
life sentence that can be released on parole. In this case, the life imprisonment
under our current law is bound to be the maximum legal sentence.
Chapter 4 deepens the issue of paroleable life imprisonment as an alternative
punishment. As for the legislation of paroleable life imprisonment, it is largely
problematic to design post-mortem conditions after parole, and to deal with the
recurrence of parole after parole. In addition, if the death penalty is abolished,
the sentence of the existing death penalty will be changed to life imprisonment,
which requires legal review.