Legal Info for Non-Koreans

The Korea Times, an English-language daily, ran an article yesterday about the Ministry of Legislation's (MOLEG) newish online database of legal information in English. The database contains legal info for foreign investors, workers, and spouses in Korea. It contains the texts of relevant statutes and codes translated into English in a fairly understandable way, in my opinion. Then again, I'm a little lawyer-to-be.

The site is by no means perfect, having a number of typos and grammatical errors in these translations, but the real beef foreigners here have is the general presentation. Even when reliably translated into English, many users complained that the database seems to have been made by lawyers, for lawyers. There aren't any layman explanations of the different laws, and when a code or statute section directs someone to contact X agency or government office, English-speakers with little Korean aptitude must find out for themselves.

Most of the ills of MOLEG's database can be traced to the way the translation of 600+pp of statutory text was done. The pages were translated by only three people over 1.5-2 months, with a single "look-over" by a native English speaker, and not a lawyer at that.

The Jury Is In

They've gone to jury trials in South Korea on some criminal matters, and you can read about it here. As the article says, a jury's verdict here is never binding on the presiding judge, who makes the final decision.

This change is basically being phased in in tandem with the switch to US-style, post-graduate law schools. All of this raises the question: in an Asian civil-law culture, what's the impetus to ape the US to such an extent?

Evaluating Judges

Back during Spring 2008, I met a Korean judge who was visiting the University of Richmond, William & Mary, the Virginia Supreme Court, and other courts in D.C. and Utah. He was investigating how American judges are evaluated in different jurisdictions, with an eye toward creating a new system for evaluating judges here in Korea.

This year, the Seoul Bar Association announced that it would implement judicial evaluations for judges around Seoul. Read about it here and here. A little background on how judges become judges here seems in order. Roughly, what happens is that a bunch of folks take the bar exam and a certain number (up to now, 1000) have been allowed to pass. Of those that pass, the top scorers become judges, the next become prosecutors, and the majority below are relegated to private practice.

Judges and prosecutors, as one article mentions, eventually go on to private practice themselves after a while. This means old lawyers, who themselves sometimes were judges, are practicing before and evaluating younger judges on items like "upholds the dignity of the office" and "is impartial to both sides." Even in the United States, a judge faced with an older lawyer who used to sit on his bench could prove intimidating. Could this be a more serious problem when that older ex-judge lawyer is actually holding the judge's report card, in a country where Confucianism dies hard?

A Casualty of the Law School War

In Korea, law school has up until now (and still for a couple years) been an undergraduate degree. Students study law as an undergrad major, then cram for the bar exam, sometimes for years, before passing it. Many never do, since it is artificially capped at around 1000 passers per year.

This year, as mentioned below, Korea is introducing American-style law schools: three year post-grad affairs that would grant JDs. However, the government here got to decide which universities could have the honor of hosting these new law schools. Many bid, and 21 were chosen. This sign is at the entrance of Sun Moon University (which is affiliated with Rev. Sun Myung Moon, i.e. the Moonies cult). It reads "Law School Campus Is Coming." This sign seems rather awkward, since months ago the list of 21 was released, and Sun Moon University wasn't on it. Still, Rev. Moon keeps the sign up, perhaps in the faith that if Jerry Falwell can have a law school, he sure as hell can too.

Human Rights v. Right to Know

In November, a female student went missing at a university south of Seoul, and murder was suspected. Around the time I arrived in Korea, authorities arrested a man suspected of killing her. The man, named Kang, confessed to killing her, as well as six other women over the past few years. Once Kang was taken into custody, the police had him wear a hood and cap to protect his identity from disclosure. He had a criminal record of some kind from before, and a few newspapers here disclosed his earlier mug shots.

This has set off a debate over which "right" is more important: the right of the people to know (I would call it freedom of the press, but no article I've read on the story has) or the right of the accused and his family to keep his identity a secret until he is proven guilty. In my understanding, this debate never happened or is long since over in the US: the man's face would be plastered over newspapers and TV immediately. If I'm wrong on that, please comment.

Does the way we approach this in the US reflect our own values? If we were in Korea's position, having to hash this out right now,which decision should we make?

To read some more about the story, see this

Interesting and tangentially related article.