Rights of investigation

Prosecution, police must win public trust first

When assumptions are wrong, conclusions get wide out of mark. This truism is applicable to the ongoing debate over the criminal investigation rights between prosecution and police. What are their purposes? Are they seeking to expand their authority or promote social justice and human rights?

People have little interest in who should have more rights in probing criminal cases. The prosecution and police are ambiguous in defining the purpose of changing their relations. They do not claim that they should have more investigative power as their impartiality and transparency can uphold investigative justice.

As their assumptions are unclear, they are unable to move out of the deadlock and change the status quo. The prosecution will continue to control the police as the former’s monopoly on indictment rights will remain intact. The police will not pursue independent probes in criminal investigations without permission from prosecutors.

One technical improvement is the police would have the discretion to reject undue directives from prosecutors. Both the prosecution and police have yet to convince people that they are free from corruption and subservience to those in power. They have yet to prove that their role is to serve the people, not to please their bosses and control the people. Their arbitrary conduct of duty spawned public cynicism.

Prosecutors are victims of their megalomaniac syndrome. Prosecutors are unable to keep themselves focused as they try to monopolize investigation rights. They try to retain even the right to indict traffic violators, which police can easily handle. Prosecutors can reduce their overwork through selection and focus of their criminal investigation.

Prosecutors will continue to be victims of their own choice as they are free from oversight. It would be ludicrous for prosecutors to investigate their own colleagues. A police authority to probe crimes of prosecutors will upgrade public confidence in the integrity of the prosecution.

The police must also ask themselves whether they are confident that Korea will become a better society once they become independent from the prosecution. Many police officers have fabricated probe documents. Many of their torture cases are still vivid in the minds of the people. The police have yet to shed the image that they are negotiable in criminal suspects, turning criminals into victims or vice versa.

Their ongoing power-struggle should be an occasion for their self-reflection and self-repentance. Their roles should not change at the whims of political bargaining.

Their squabble for role-adjustment will not get public sympathy until they become impartial agents of social justice. Now is the time for the law enforcement bodies to wage competition for winning the hearts of the public. They should refrain from seeking to expand influence and power out of selfishness.

Their relationship could become healthy through checks and balances, not subordination. They seem to forget this fact.

Korea is an advanced country economically, but prosecutors and policemen are living in a developing country. Seeking to expand power before getting public consensus is like putting the cart before the horse.


(2011-11-24/koreatimes)