NCJ Number
58444
Date Published
1978
Length
3 pages
Annotation
AN EXAMINATION OF THE REASONS FOR SOUTH KOREAN CRIMINAL TRIAL DELAYS LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PROBLEM OF SPEEDY TRIAL IS A MANAGEMENT RATHER THAN A SYSTEM PROBLEM.
Abstract
NO MATTER HOW WELL THE WAYS AND MEANS FOR SPEEDY TRIAL ARE PROVIDED, IF PERSONS INVOLVED, ESPECIALLY THE JUDGES, ARE INCOMPETENT AND INSINCERE, THE GOAL OF SPEEDINESS CANNOT BE ACHIEVED. THE CONSTITUTION ESTABLISHES THAT 'ALL CITIZENS SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL.' INDEED AN EXAMINATION OF DATA FROM 1971 TO 1975, SHOWS THAT IN GENERAL, CRIMINAL CASES ARE DISPOSED OF FAIRLY QUICKLY. THE AVERAGE TIME FOR DISPOSITION OF CASES IN THE FIRST INSTANCE IS 2.9 MONTHS IN SINGLE JUDGE COURTS ANND 3.8 MONTHS IN COLLEGIATE COURTS. HOWEVER, THERE ARE STILL MANY CASES WHICH ARE PENDING FOR MORE THAN A YEAR. WHILE ARTICLE 92 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED THAT DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED TWO MONTHS, PROVISIONS ALLOW FOR INSTANCES IN WHICH FINAL DISPOSITION OF A CASE BY THE SUPREME COURT MIGHT NOT OCCUR UNTIL AFTER A YEAR AND SIX MONTHS. SPECIFIC PROVISIONS ESTABLISH MAXIMUM TIME PERIODS IN WHICH CASES CAN BE PROSECUTED AND ESTABLISH PROCEDURES BY WHICH FAILURE TO MEET THESE DEADLINES ARE TO BE HANDLED. IF A DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL IS INFRINGED, THERE IS NO STATUTORY PROVISION FOR HIS OR HER REMEDY EXCEPT BY DISMISSING PROSECUTION. HOWEVER, THE SYSTEM IS SO STRUCTURED TO ENSURE SPEEDY TRIALS THAT ANY EXCESSIVE DELAY MUST BE ATTRIBUTED PRIMARILY TO INCOMPETENCE AND INSINCERITY OF JUDGES. NO REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (KCP)