International Political Economy April 6, 2019
Justin Gabriel B. Gomez Mr Jumel G. Estrañero
ABFS FS301
The Political Economy of South Korea and the Empowerment of its Capital Punishment
I. Abstract
The world nowadays is a desolation of where lies emanate from
all corners of direction, major judgements are askew, opposites being
the desired tactic, monumental destructions came to rule over us, and
sinister crimes are continually transcending into our everyday
commotions. From a simple scratching of another’s’ trust to plundering
millions of currency from the rightful hands, the concept of Capital
Punishment also known as: “Death Penalty” would come to its avail.
Capital Punishment is a course of action enacted by the state’s law on
its own accord to a person who committed various crimes regardless of
the subject’s civil position inside the society.
Moreover, Capital Punishment is a government-sanctioned practice
whereby a person is killed by the state as a punishment for a crime. The
sentence that someone be punished in such a manner is referred to as
a death sentence, whereas the act of carrying out the sentence is known
as an execution. Crimes that are punishable by death are known as
capital crimes or capital offences, and they commonly include offences
such as murder, mass murder, terrorism, treason, espionage, offenses
against the State, such as attempting to overthrow government, piracy,
drug trafficking, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, but
may include a wide range of offences depending on a country.
Etymologically, the term capital (lit. "of the head", derived via the Latin
capitalis from caput, "head") in this context alluded to execution by
beheading. Fifty-six countries retain capital punishment, 106 countries
have completely abolished it de jure for all crimes, eight have abolished
it for ordinary crimes (while maintaining it for special circumstances such
as war crimes), and 28 are abolitionist in practice.1
II. A. Statement of the Problem
1. Having to say that although most nations have abolished
capital punishment, over 60% of the world's population live
in countries where the death penalty is retained. On this
account, generally seeking, are there any positive outcomes
for the several countries’ political and economic status
outside South Korea by its execution?
2. Making death penalty on its way to the South Korean
government, does the jurisprudence first and foremost affect
the state’s International Political Economy positively by
enacting the said law to crime passionate persons
throughout the region?
3. Applying one of the political thought to redefine the tides of
conflict is to coalesce the Machiavellianism principle to the
outside world. Now, will the said practice be at its great
effectiveness while capital punishment is at work?
B. Methodology
There are numerous theories, systems, and practices from the
past up to the present time that are capable of paralleling Capital
Punishment to be geometrically in lined with the code of the states. From
the past and up to where we are standing, there are umpteen
contentions about Death Penalty taking its course of lead to pilot peace
and security all over its outstretch. The study will be leaning to
Machiavellianism. Hence, it shall prove if instilling fear into the public’s
eyes, in return, manifest any self-hesitations within their own domains.
The next tact will be the outlining of Utilitarianism. The world is nothing
but a room full of uncertainties. Without knowing at every sides there are
hidden agendas surrounding its cornerstone. While proving Death
Penalty to be at its efficiency, the concept of utility would surface the
shorelines of politics and economics. Reiterating the obvious: we shall
toil the positivity of the two political viewpoints in relation to the South
Korean international political economy on this point. Everything inside,
shall be an excerpt from various studies on the web.
III. Review of Related Literature
The following articles to be posted are from various people who
differs from their political and economic beliefs and standpoints. I do not
possess nor claim any of these works. A wonderful drudgery indeed.
ORIGINS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
As tribal societies developed into social classes and humankind created
its own self-governed republics, capital punishment became a common
response to a variety of crimes, including sexual assault, treason, and
various military offenses. Written rules were created to notify the people
about the penalties they would face for participating in any of these
misdeeds. One of the earliest written documents that supported the
death penalty was the Code of Hammurabi, which was written on stone
tablets around 1760 BC. It contained 282 laws that were collected by the
Babylonian King Hammurabi, including the theory of an “eye for an eye.”
Several other ancient documents supported capital punishment,
including the Jewish Torah, the Christian Old Testament, and the
writings of an Athenian legislator named Draco, who proposed the death
penalty for a large variety of misdeeds in ancient Greece.
Early forms of capital punishment were designed to be slow, painful, and
torturous. In some ancient cultures, law breakers were put to death by
stoning, crucifixion, being burned at the stake, and even slowly being
crushed by elephants. Later societies found these methods to be cruel
and unusual forms of punishment, and sought out more humane
practices. During the 18th and 19th centuries, legal bodies found faster
and less painful approaches to the death penalty, including hanging and
beheading with the guillotine. While these were still violent and bloody
practices that were often large public spectacles, the end result was
usually instantaneous and therefore seen as more compassionate.
In the United States, capital punishment has existed since the founding
of the original colonies, and was utilized for a large number of crimes
including burglary, murder, treason, counterfeiting, and arson. Outside
of the law, lynch mobs often formed to bring the accused to justice. Law
makers in the U.S. began to review and revise policies behind the death
penalty around the time of the American Revolution. In 1791, the
Constitution was amended for the eighth time, to prohibit any form of
punishment considered “cruel and unusual.” Although this was not an
attempt to ban capital punishment, it did begin a movement towards
carrying out more humane executions. By the late 1800s, employees of
Thomas Edison introduced the electric chair to accomplish this goal.
Later, in the 1970s, lethal injections entered the foray as another option.
Over time, the death penalty has become even more controversial
throughout the world. Opponents to the practice declare it to be
inhumane and unfair, and believe that no life should be taken, regardless
of the crime that has been committed. DNA testing has proven the
innocence of several individuals on death row, and the argument that no
one should be executed to avoid killing an innocent individual has grown
in response. Several states in the U.S. no longer support the death
penalty, and many countries have abolished the practice completely. 4
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Capital punishment, or “the death penalty,” is an institutionalized
practice designed to result in deliberately executing persons in response
to actual or supposed misconduct and following an authorized, rule-
governed process to conclude that the person is responsible for violating
norms that warrant execution. Punitive executions have historically
been imposed by diverse kinds of authorities, for an expansive range of
conduct, for political or religious beliefs and practices, for a status
beyond one’s control, or without employing any significant due process
procedures. Punitive executions also have been and continue to be
carried out more informally, such as by terrorist groups, urban gangs, or
mobs. But for centuries in Europe and America, discussions have
focused on capital punishment as an institutionalized, rule-governed
practice of modern states and legal systems governing serious criminal
conduct and procedures.
Capital punishment has existed for millennia, as evident from ancient
law codes and Plato’s famous rendition of Socrates’s trial and execution
by democratic Athens in 399 B.C.E. Among major European
philosophers, specific or systematic attention to the death penalty is the
exception until about 400 years ago. Most modern philosophic attention
to capital punishment emerged from penal reform proponents, as
principled, moral evaluation of law and social practice, or amidst theories
of the modern state and sovereignty. The mid-twentieth century
emergence of an international human rights regime and American
constitutional controversies sparked anew much philosophic focus on
theories of punishment and the death penalty, including arbitrariness,
mistakes, or discrimination in the American institution of capital
punishment.
The central philosophic question about capital punishment is one of
moral justification: on what grounds, if any, is the state’s deliberate
killing of identified offenders a morally justifiable response to voluntary
criminal conduct, even the most serious of crimes, such as murder? As
with questions about the morality of punishment, two broadly different
approaches are commonly distinguished: retributivism, with a focus on
past conduct that merits death as a penal response, and utilitarianism or
consequentialism, with attention to the effects of the death penalty,
especially any effects in preventing more crime through deterrence or
incapacitation. Section One provides some historical context and basic
concepts for locating the central philosophic question about capital
punishment: Is death the amount or kind of penalty that is morally
justified for the most serious of crimes, such as murder? Section Two
attends to classic considerations of lex talionis (“the law of retaliation”)
and recent retributivist approaches to capital punishment that involve the
right to life or a conception of fairness. Section Three considers classic
utilitarian approaches to justifying the death penalty: primarily as
preventer of crime through deterrence or incapacitation, but also with
respect to some other consequences of capital punishment. Section
Four attends to relatively recent approaches to punishment as
expression or communication of fundamental values or norms, including
for purposes of educating or reforming offenders. Section Five explores
issues of justification related to the institution of capital punishment, as
in America: Is the death penalty morally justifiable if imperfect
procedures produce mistakes, caprice, or (racial) discrimination in
determining who is to be executed? Or if the actual execution of capital
punishment requires unethical conduct by medical practitioners or other
necessary participants? Section Six considers the moral grounds, if any
exist, for the state’s authority to punish by death.
Context and Basic Concepts
a. Historical Practices
Much philosophic focus on the death penalty is modern and relatively
recent. The phrase ‘capital punishment’ is older, used for nearly a
millennium to signify the death penalty. The classical Latin and medieval
French roots of the term ‘capital’ indicate a punishment involving the loss
of head or life, perhaps reflecting the use of beheading as a form of
execution. The actual practice of capital punishment is ancient,
emerging much earlier than the familiar terms long used to refer to it. In
the ancient world, the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (circa 1750
B.C.E.) included about 25 capital crimes; the Mosaic Code of the ancient
Hebrews identifies numerous crimes punishable by death, invoking, like
other ancient law codes, lex talionis, “the law of retaliation”; Draco’s
Code of 621 B.C.E. Athens punished most crimes by death, and later
Athenian law famously licensed the trial and death of Socrates; the fifth
century B.C.E. Twelve Tables of Roman law include capital punishment
for such crimes as publishing insulting songs or disturbing the nocturnal
peace of urban areas, and later Roman law famously permitted the
crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. Even in such early practices, capital
punishment was seen as within the authority of political rulers, embodied
as a legal institution, and employed for a wide range of misconduct
proscribed by law.
Medieval and early modern Europe retained expansive lists of capital
crimes and notably expanded the forms of execution beyond the
common ancient practices of stoning, crucifixion, drowning, beating to
death, or poisoning. In the Middle Ages both secular and ecclesiastical
authorities participated in executions deliberately designed to be
torturous and brutal, such as beheading, burning alive, drawing and
quartering, hanging, disembowelling, using the rack, using thumb-
screws, pressing with weights, boiling in oil, publicly dissecting, and
castrating. Such brutality was conducted publicly as spectacle and
ritual-—an important or even essential element of capital punishment
was not only the death of the accused, but the public process of killing
and dying on display. Capital punishment was varied in its severity by
the spectrum of torturous ways by which the offender’s death was
eventually effected by political and other penal authorities.
In “the new world” the American colonies’ use of the death penalty was
influenced more by Britain than by any other nation. The “Bloody Code”
of the Elizabethan era included over 200 capital crimes, and the
American colonies followed England in using public, ritualized hangings
as the common form of execution. Until the mid-18th century, the
colonies employed elaborate variations of the ritual of execution by
hanging, even to the point of holding fake hangings. Stuart Banner
summarizes the early American practices:
Capital punishment was more than just one penal technique among
others. It was the base point from which all other kinds of punishment
deviated. When the state punished serious crime, most of the methods
…were variations on execution. Officials imposed death sentences that
were never carried out, they conducted mock hangings…, and they
dramatically halted real execution ceremonies at the last minute. These
were methods of inflicting a symbolic death …. Officials also wielded a
set of tools capable of intensifying a death sentence – burning at the
stake, public display of the corpse, dismemberment and dissection –
ways of producing a punishment worse than death. (54)
In early America “capital punishment was not just a single penalty,” but
“a spectrum of penalties with gradations of severity above and below an
ordinary execution” (Banner, 86).
The late 18th century brought a “dramatic transformation of penal
thought and practice” that was international in scope (Banner, 89). The
dramatic change came with the birth of publicly supported prisons or
penitentiaries that allowed extended incarceration for large numbers of
people (Banner, 99). Before prisons and the practical possibility of
lengthy incarceration as an alternative, “the only available units of
measurement for serious crime were degrees of deviation from an
ordinary execution” (Banner, 70). After the invention of prisons, for
serious crimes there was now an alternative to capital punishment and
to the practiced spectrum of torturous executions: prisons allowed
varying conditions of confinement (for example, hard labour, solitary
confinement, loss of privacy) and a temporal measure, at least, for
distinguishing degrees of punishment to address kinds of serious
misconduct. Dramatic changes for capital punishment also came with
the 1864 publication in Italy of Cesare Beccaria’s essay, “On Crimes and
Punishments.” Very influential in Europe and the United States,
Beccaria’s sustained, philosophic investigation of the death penalty
challenged both the authority of the state to punish by death and the
utility of capital punishment as a superior deterrent to lengthy
imprisonment. Philosophic defenses of the death penalty, like that of
Immanuel Kant, opposed reformers and others, who, like Beccaria,
argued for abolition of capital punishment. During the 19th century the
methods of execution were made less brutal and the number of capital
crimes was much reduced compared to earlier centuries of practice.
Discussions of the death penalty’s merits invoked divergent
understandings of the aims of punishment in general and thus of capital
punishment in particular.
By the mid-20th century, two developments prompted another period of
focused philosophic attention to the death penalty. In the United States
a series of Supreme Court cases challenged whether the death penalty
falls under the constitutional prohibition of “cruel and unusual
punishments,” including questions about the legal and moral import of a
criminal justice process that results in mistakes, caprice, or racial
discrimination in capital cases. Capital punishment also became a
global concern with the post-World War II Nuremberg trials of Nazi
leaders and after the 1948 Declaration of Universal Human Rights and
subsequent human rights treaties explicitly accorded all persons a right
to life and encouraged abolishing the death penalty worldwide. Most
nations have now abolished capital punishment, with notable exceptions
including China, North Korea, Japan, India, Indonesia, Egypt, Somalia,
and the United States, the only western “industrialized” nation still
retaining the death penalty.
b. Philosophic Frameworks and Approaches
Capital punishment is often explored philosophically in the context of
more general theories of “the standard or central case” of punishment
as an institution or practice within a structure of legal rules (Hart,
“Prolegomenon,” 3-5). The philosopher’s interest in the death penalty,
then, is embedded in broader issues about the moral permissibility of
punishment. Any punishment – and certainly an execution –
intentionally inflicts on a person significant pain, suffering,
unpleasantness, or deprivation that it is ordinarily wrong for an authority
like the state to impose. What conditions or considerations, if any, would
morally justify such penal practices? Following a framework famously
offered by H.L.A. Hart,
[w]hat we should look for are answers to a number of different questions
such as: What justifies the general practice of punishment? To whom
may punishment be applied? How severely may we punish?
(“Prolegomenon,” 3)
These different questions are, respectively, about the general justifying
aim of punishment, about the conditions of responsibility for criminal
conduct and liability to punishment, and about the amount, kind, or form
of punishment justifiable to address actual or supposed misconduct. It
is the last of these questions of justification – about the justified amount,
kind, or form of punishment – that is foremost in philosophic approaches
to the death penalty. Almost all modern and recent discussions of
capital punishment assume liability for the death penalty is only for the
gravest of crimes, such as murder; almost all assume comparatively
humane modes of execution and largely ignore considering obviously
torturous or brutal killings of offenders; and it is assumed that some
amount of punishment is merited for murderers. The central question,
then, is not often whether punishing murderers is morally justifiable
(rather than rehabilitation or release, for example), but whether it is
morally justifiable to punish by death (rather than by imprisonment, for
example) those found to have committed a grave offense, such as
murder. Responses to this question about the death penalty often build
on more general principles or theories about the purposes of punishment
in general, and about general criteria for determining the proper
measure or amount of punishment for various crimes.
Among philosophers there are typically identified two broadly different
ways of thinking about the moral merits of punishment in general, and
whether capital punishment is a proper amount of punishment to
address serious criminal misconduct (see “Punishment”). Justifications
are proposed either with reference to forward-looking considerations,
such as various future effects or consequences of capital punishment,
or with reference to backward-looking considerations, such as facets of
the wrongdoing to be punished. The latter approach, if dominant, has,
since the 1930s, been called ‘retributivism’; retributivist justifications
“look back” to the offense committed in order to link directly the amount,
kind, or form of punishment to what the offense merits as penal response.
This linkage is often characterized as whether a punishment “fits” the
crime committed. For retributivists, any beneficial effects or
consequences of capital punishment are wholly irrelevant or distinctly
secondary. Forward-looking justifications of punishment have been
labeled ‘utilitarian’ since the 19th century and, since the mid-20th
century, other versions are sometimes called ‘consequentialism’.
Consequentialist or utilitarian approaches to the death penalty are
distinguished from retributivist approaches because the former rely only
on assessing the future effects or consequences of capital punishment,
such as crime prevention through deterrence and incapacitation.
Retributivist Approaches
Retributivists approach justifying the amount of punishment for
misconduct by “looking back” to aspects of the wrongdoing committed.
There are many different versions of retributivism; all maintain a tight,
essential link between the offense voluntarily committed and the amount,
form, or kind of punishment justifiably threatened or imposed. Future
effects or consequences, if any, are then irrelevant or distinctly
secondary considerations to justifying punishments for misconduct,
including the death penalty. Retributivism about capital punishment
often prominently appeals to the principle of lex talionis, or “the law of
retaliation,” an idea popularly familiarized in the ancient and biblical
phrase, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” Forms of retributivism
vary according to their interpretation of lex talionis or in their appealing
to alternative moral notions, such as basic moral rights or a principle of
fairness.2
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN SOUTH KOREA
Capital punishment is a legal penalty in South Korea. As of 2017, there
are at least 300 people in South Korea under a death sentence.
Executions are carried out by hanging.
On August 27, 2015, the Supreme Court sentenced a man called "Jiang
Jaechin" to death for multiple murder, rape, and child rape. This is the
last civilian on death row.
On February 19, 2016, the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence
passed on a man known by the surname 'Lim', a 24-year-old Army
sergeant who killed five fellow soldiers and injured seven others in a
shooting rampage near the border with North Korea in 2014. He became
the 361st person on death row in South Korea. According to Yonhap, of
the 361 people on death row, 45, including Lim, were soldiers.
History
Executions in Korea have existed since the Joseon Period. The purpose
of executions was to cause reactions and stop crimes. Methods of
executions included slow slicing, hanging, and dismemberment. Heads
of executed people have always been used as warnings to others.
Specifically, dismembered heads were displayed to the public both to
serve as public warning and enforce military courtesy. However, bodies
of executed people were allowed funeral proceedings.
In contemporary history, the first execution law was established on
March 25, 1895, by the Supreme Court of Judicature of Japan acting
under the Constitution of the Empire of Japan. The first death sentence
was given four days later, on March 29, 1895 to Jeon Bongjun. Since
1948, a total of 902 people have been executed.
Currently, the Penal Code of South Korea regulates executions as a
form of punishment for some crimes according to the Criminal Law
section 41. Those crimes include: Rebellion (Section 87), Conspiracy
with foreign countries (Section 92), homicide (Section 250), robbery-
homicide (Section 338), and other 12 sections. People under 18 cannot
be executed according to Juvenile Law (Section 59, Juvenile Law).
Developments
In February 1998, then-president Kim Dae-jung enacted a moratorium
on executions. This moratorium is still in effect as of 2013.Thus,
executions in Korea are considered to be abolished de facto. The last
executions took place in December 1997, when 23 people (each of
whom has murdered at least 2 people) were put to death. However,
there are still at least 60 people with a death sentence, as of 2013.
In 2010 the Constitutional Court of Korea ruled that capital punishment
did not violate “human dignity and worth” in the Constitution of the
Republic of Korea. In a five-to-four decision, capital punishment was
upheld as constitutional. Institutions such as Amnesty International
considered this a ‘major setback for South Korea'. Later in 2010, Justice
Minister Lee Kwi-nam alluded to a possibility of resuming executions. In
2013, three bills which proposed abolishment of the death penalty
lapsed at the end of the National Assembly’s term.
Executions are still a matter of debate. People have called for executions
for violent crimes, especially those involving rape of minors.
A 2017 poll found younger South Koreans are more likely to support
capital punishment than older ones. People in their 20s were the most
supportive at 62.6 percent.
Notable cases
Kang Ho-sun was convicted of kidnapping and killing eight women
between 2006 and 2008, and of burning to death his wife and mother-
in-law in 2005. Kang, 38, was arrested in January for the murder of a
female college student and later confessed to killing and secretly burying
seven other women. Other death row inmates include Yoo Young-chul
and members of the Chijon family, a former gang of cannibals.
In March 2010, in contrast to prior speculations, Minister Lee Kwi-nam
hinted that the executions of death row inmates will resume, breaking
the virtual 13-year moratorium. The remarks came a few days after Kim
Kil-tae, who raped and murdered a 15-year-old schoolgirl, was convicted.
However, this did not happen.
In December 2010, Kimk's death sentence was reduced to life
imprisonment and the prosecutors did not appeal to the Supreme Court.6
SOUTH KOREA'S DEATH PENALTY: FORGOTTEN, BUT NOT GONE
South Korea is, to my knowledge, the only place in the world where a
former death row inmate went on to become President of the country
(and to win the Nobel Peace Prize too). Kim Dae-jung was one of many
political prisoners sentenced to death in South Korea in the 1980s.
Amnesty International has issued a powerful short film about that era
and the people who survived it. Interviews with the former President, and
other former political prisoners, are interspersed with interviews with the
man who served as Kim Dae-Jung’s jailer.
South Korea has come a long way since the 1980s, and capital
punishment, while still on the books, is no longer really used. There
have been no executions in more than 10 years. Nonetheless, South
Korea’s Constitutional Court recently ruled that the death penalty was
still constitutional, though just barely. The vote was 5-4.
Many countries that have moved to abolish the death penalty have done
so because of its legacy as a tool of political suppression, and its clear
link to other grave human rights violations like torture. Amidst South
Korea’s thriving democracy and powerful economy, the death penalty is
nothing but an unused relic of an ugly past.3
Reasons for South Korean attitudes towards the death penalty:
exploring the nexus between strong public support and history of
misapplication
As of this writing, South Korea (officially, the Republic of Korea) is an
abolitionist-in-practice nation; capital punishment is legal, but no death
sentences have been carried out since a moratorium was enacted in
1997. Public support for the death penalty has decreased over time;
however, the factors that determine support for or opposition to the
death penalty of the South Korean general public are largely unknown.
Using survey data from a nationwide sample of 416 respondents, this
study examined the potential predictors for public attitudes towards
capital punishment support. A majority of survey respondents (83%)
supported the death penalty, a higher percentage than recent surveys
of the South Korean general public. The deterrence and retribution
perspectives were positively related to death penalty support, while
crime severity, neighbourhood safety, the brutalisation effect, and
innocence were negatively related. This study provides the first
multivariate analysis of factors associated with South Korean attitudes
towards the death penalty.5
IV. Analysis
The following graphs to be shown is pertaining the execution of
Capital Punishment throughout South Korea and outside its borders.
During the 1700’s, death by hanging is the most effective way of
executing criminals at the past. As seen from movies most notably:
Braveheart, people back from the days were hanged because of the
technological availability at the time. People tend to form crowd and
make executions public to the eyes of the citizen and it is their form of
entertainment before. Fast forward to 1900’s and death penalty shifted
to electrocution. Due to the fact that technological advancements
transcended. It’s is also considered to be a digital age. But still, many
people are controversial when it comes to this. There have been many
internal feuds and personal contentions that capital punishment violates
our human rights. With the numerous disagreements throughout the
past, nevertheless, Capital Punishment worked its way through up until
the present time. And by that, during the 21’st century, Death Penalty
would engulf the modern times using injections. “Lethal Injection” is the
iconic terminology for the use of potassium chloride for death. There are
three main ingredients and tunnelling it down for the following chemical
composition would be: Midazolam (to sedate), Vecuronium Bromide (to
paralyse muscles), and Potassium Chloride (to stop the heart).
V. Summary
Capital Punishment in South Korea is a legal
penalty as of 2017. There are at least 300 people in South Korea
under a death sentence. Although the last execution was held on
August 27, 2015 it is still remain as a legal form of dealing with
criminals who is known for their multiple crimes. Their Death Penalty
remains as de facto. There are many people who are against this. And
specifically for the South Koreans, the further killings of criminals will
surely degrade their human rights. The positive effects of Capital
Punishment throughout the globe rendered the years with decrease in
the level of crime. It seems that fear by death is effective after all. It is
also noteworthy to state that performing an execution
VI. Reference
APA Citation:
Capital punishment. (2019, April 03). Retrieved from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment
Hoag, R. (n.d.). Capital Punishment. Retrieved from
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cap-puni/
South Korea's Death Penalty: Forgotten, But Not Gone – Amnesty International
USA. (2010, March 04). Retrieved from https://www.amnestyusa.org/south-
koreas-death-penalty-forgotten-but-not-gone/
Origins Of Capital Punishment. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/execution/origins-of-capital-
punishment/
Choi, E., Jiang, S., & Lambert, E. G. (2017, October 20). Reasons for South
Korean attitudes towards the death penalty: Exploring the nexus between
strong public support and history of misapplication. Retrieved April 25, 2017,
from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01924036.2017.1391107
Capital punishment in South Korea. (2019, February 06). Retrieved from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_South_Korea
Chicago Format:
"Capital Punishment." Wikipedia. April 03, 2019. Accessed April 05, 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment.
Hoag, Robert. "Capital Punishment." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Accessed April 05, 2019. https://www.iep.utm.edu/cap-puni/.
"South Korea's Death Penalty: Forgotten, But Not Gone – Amnesty
International USA." Amnesty International USA. March 04, 2010. Accessed
April 05, 2019. https://www.amnestyusa.org/south-koreas-death-penalty-
forgotten-but-not-gone/.
"Origins Of Capital Punishment." Crime Museum. Accessed April 05, 2019.
https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/execution/origins-of-capital-
punishment/
Choi, Eunsuhk, Shanhe Jiang, and Eric G. Lambert. "Reasons for South
Korean Attitudes towards the Death Penalty: Exploring the Nexus between
Strong Public Support and History of Misapplication." Taylor & Francis. October
20, 2017. Accessed April 05, 2019.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01924036.2017.1391107
"Capital Punishment in South Korea." Wikipedia. February 06, 2019. Accessed
April 05, 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_South_Korea.
