Fine-tuning needed to ease the side effects

The Ministry of Justice has introduced a draft on a Korean version of the Jessica’s Law of the United States to contain repeated sexual crimes and grave sexual predators.

The Ministry of Justice has introduced a draft on a Korean version of the Jessica’s Law of the United States to contain repeated sexual crimes and grave sexual predators. The new law would restrict residence of sexual offenders with the high risk of recidivism and abusers of minors to state-designated facilities after release from prison. Specifically, the sanction applies to the offenders of children under age 13 or who have committed the crime for more than three times. They would also be subject to mandatory drug treatment.

The ministry came up with the new bill as more than a quarter of sex crimes on children and teenagers were targeted at 13 or under, and the recidivism ratio was at 12.9 percent. Neighbors also must live in fear since a released sexual offender can choose their place to live.

The ex-convicts can often fall out of surveillance by removing their electronic monitoring device or falsely reporting their address. In 2021, a convicted sex offender in his 30s raped a minor while living in a place different from what he had reported to the police. Last year, there were 5,458 sexual offenders who were indicted for breaking the regulation on mandatory report on their residence and other private information. Of them, whereabout of 168 remains unknown.

The justice ministry estimates that 325 can be subject to the restriction in residence and 59 will be release from prison next year. The state must toughen watch and supervision on highly-dangerous sexual offenders. Treatment also needs to be mandatory as study shows the rate of recidivism is 1.3 percent for treated criminals versus 10 percent of untreated offenders.

But the restriction can raise the issue of violating basic rights and provoke protests from residents living nearby. Article 14 of the Constitution, which states all citizens have the freedom to choose where they live and move, does not make convicts an exception. Forcing ex-cons to live in a certain place even after serving their term could be against the Constitution.

Designating their place to live also is not easy. The ministry initially thought of preventing released offenders from living within 600 meters of schools. But it changed its mind since the locations could be concentered outside the capital. Since state-designated facilities could be found at less populated regions, the gap in public security also could widen.

Even if the locations are set away from urban areas, nearby residents also could protest. If many of the offenders are bundled under a certain area, the community could be isolated. We understand the good intention of the justice ministry, but more fine-tuning is necessary to ease apparent anxieties about the side effects.